Oral Answers to Questions

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

The Secretary of State was asked—

Hong Kong

Mohammad Sarwar: If he will make a statement on the development of democratic institutions in Hong Kong.

Bill Rammell: We have repeatedly said that we hope to see early progress on universal suffrage at a pace in line with the wishes of the people of Hong Kong. We are concerned about the recent decision by the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress to set limits on constitutional development in Hong Kong. We have made our concerns known to the Chinese Government.

Mohammad Sarwar: I thank my hon. Friend for his reply. As the Prime Minister of China is in the United Kingdom and has held discussions with our Prime Minister, can my hon. Friend confirm that our Government have impressed on the Chinese Government the fact that delaying elections in Hong Kong would lead to greater instability and is unacceptable to the British Government?

Bill Rammell: I thank my hon. Friend for his comments. This is an issue that we are actively discussing and which was raised by the Prime Minister with the Chinese Premier yesterday. It is particularly disappointing that the NPC acted before the Government of the Special Administrative Region completed its consultation. We have a shared interest with the Chinese Government in the prosperity and stability of Hong Kong, and we believe that the best way to secure and sustain that is an early move towards universal suffrage.

Michael Fallon: Given the seriousness of the decision by the National People's Congress what will the Government do if the Chinese Government continue to take no notice of those protests?

Bill Rammell: It is a statement of the obvious that we do not run Hong Kong any more, and are therefore dealing with a sovereign Government. Nevertheless, we retain an historical commitment, and strongly believe that the best way to secure stability for the people of Hong Kong is an early move towards universal suffrage at a pace in line with their wishes. We will continue to express that view.

Ben Chapman: Does my hon. Friend appreciate that if the one nation, two systems solution for Hong Kong is seen by the Chinese as the ultimate solution to bring Taiwan back to the motherland, its actions regarding universal suffrage will not be welcome in that territory? Does he also appreciate that this appears to an outsider in the United Kingdom and to the people of Hong Kong to be a significant departure from the substantial degree of autonomy that they were promised?

Bill Rammell: I wholly agree with my hon. Friend in his last remarks. We have expressed concern because the decision by the NPC appears to be inconsistent with the high degree of autonomy that was put forward in the joint declaration. We have expressed that view both publicly and privately, and we will continue to do so.

Tony Baldry: How has China breached the Basic Law in Hong Kong? Would it not be better, having allowed China to take over the sovereignty of Hong Kong, to trust the people of China to get this right? They have shown good faith in relation to Hong Kong to date, and British berating will probably not be particularly productive.

Bill Rammell: Since the handover in 1997—we report on this twice a year to Parliament—the one country, two systems arrangement has generally worked well. Nevertheless, it is right that we should voice our concerns. We have publicly voiced our concern that the decision appears to be inconsistent with the high degree of autonomy in the joint declaration. With respect, that view commands majority support across the Chamber.

Middle East

Meg Munn: What assessment he has made of Mr. Sharon's plan to remove settlements from Gaza and its effect on the road map.

Jim Cunningham: In what ways the Government are carrying forward their commitment to the success of the middle east peace plan.

Jack Straw: The removal of settlements and the withdrawal of the Israeli army from positions in the occupied territories are in line with Israel's commitments under phase 1 of the road map. For this reason, the plans of the Israeli Government were welcomed by the Quartet, as Kofi Annan spelled out last week. It is the road map, internationally agreed and endorsed by the United Nations Security Council, which is fundamental to a peaceful settlement in the middle east. Despite the setback of the recent Likud referendum, we, the European Union, and the Quartet are fully engaged in making what progress we can. Last week, I met Israeli Foreign Minister Silvan Shalom, Egyptian Foreign Minister Ahmad Maher and Nabil Shaath and Salam Fayyad of the Palestinian Authority.
	The United Kingdom's position is identical to that of the Quartet. In the latter's statement of 4 May, it said that any withdrawal by Israel must not prejudice the final status negotiations between the parties nor undermine the two-state solution of Israel being in security and at peace with its neighbours, and Palestine established as a contiguous and viable state.

Meg Munn: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the majority of ordinary Israelis do indeed want peace? Does he further agree that it is essential that the Palestinian Authority be involved in negotiations with Israel? What steps should now be taken by both sides in order to get negotiations started?

Jack Straw: I entirely share my hon. Friend's views. The steps are set out in the road map and include more activity by the Palestinian Authority in respect of security, and withdrawals by the Israeli Government. So far as security is concerned, there have been some improvements in the organisation of security forces inside the Palestinian Authority, and we continue to offer what advice we can to that authority.

Jim Cunningham: Given the recent statement by the President of the United States that progress towards the implementation of the Palestinian state is slipping, what discussions has the Foreign Office had with my right hon. Friend's counterpart in the United States to clarify the situation? Can my right hon. Friend give us an assurance that any future discussions between the Israelis and the Americans will also involve the Palestinians, and will not repeat what happened a few weeks ago, when the Palestinians were left out of discussions about the settlements?

Jack Straw: I have a great many discussions with Secretary Powell of the United States and I shall be seeing him again this Friday to discuss the middle east, among other things. The United States is one of the four members of the quartet and is as fully committed as the other three members of the Quartet to the two-state solution set out in the road map and to the lines of progress described by the road map, which include full involvement by the Palestinians and the Palestinian Authority.

Elfyn Llwyd: The right hon. Gentleman will know about the International Development Committee report in January entitled "Development Assistance and the Occupied Palestinian Territories", which condemned the damage to the Palestinian economy and blamed Israel's incursions, curfews, checkpoints and so on. The Palestinian economy is being choked and decimated. What is the right hon. Gentleman doing about that?

Jack Straw: We were grateful to the Select Committee for the report. As it highlighted, after the United States, the United Kingdom is the largest single donor of aid within the Palestinian area. We have had continuing discussions with the Israelis and I raised these matters again last week when I saw Foreign Minister Silvan Shalom about the need for them to lift the restrictions, which are unquestionably making life, which is always difficult, much more difficult in the occupied territories. At the same time, it must be put on record that the sooner the Palestinian Authority gets a real and convincing grip on rejectionist terrorist groups operating within those territories, the easier life will be—and the easier it will be, too, for the Israeli Government to lift some of those restrictions.

Peter Tapsell: Despite the uncertain impression made by the Prime Minister on his most recent visit to Washington, can the Foreign Secretary confirm that the British Government remain fully committed to the full implementation of United Nations resolutions 242 and 338?

Jack Straw: I confirm that, and I also make it clear to the House that in his press conference alongside President Bush as well as on many other occasions, the Prime Minister was categorical in his support for the British Government's long-established policy of supporting resolutions 242 and 338.

David Cairns: I welcome my right hon. Friend's opening remarks that there is no inconsistency between Israel's obligations under the road map and a unilateral withdrawal from the Gaza strip. Is it not time that instead of complaining about that, other parties to the road map recognised their own phase 1 obligations under the road map—namely, the complete cessation of terrorist violence? Is not the reason why the timetable is slipping and the road map is not being implemented that Hamas set out last summer to destroy the road map through bus suicide terrorist bombs?

Jack Straw: There is no doubt that reasonable progress was being made in the implementation of the road map between the end of June and 19 August, and it was the planting and detonation of a terrible bomb in the middle of Jerusalem on that day which has marked the decline of progress and much bloodshed since then. The road map lays down obligations on each party there—Israel and the Palestinian Authority separately—and on the international community. What is crucial is that each party—Israel and the Palestinian Authority—instead of complaining about the other, take the steps that it is obliged to take to implement the road map.

Gary Streeter: Whatever the contents of the revised Sharon plan when it finally emerges, will the Foreign Secretary confirm that the Government's response and subsequent actions will continue to focus on getting the parties talking to each other again and on getting the road map back on track? Does he agree with President Bush that a Palestinian state in 2005 is no longer realistic? Given the lack of progress since 2003, is it intended that new time lines will be introduced into the road map?

Jack Straw: Of course, a key part of our approach is to encourage both parties into direct collaboration. There is always some collaboration—often more than meets the eye—and that is of crucial importance. That is one of the reasons why I met representatives of the Palestinian Authority and the Israeli Foreign Minister last week. On time lines, our position remains as set out in the road map. Of course it is the case, given what has happened since last August, that delay is more likely than rapid progress, but the road map set out obligations, and it is our responsibility as an indirect member of the quartet, through the Security Council and the European Union, to do all that we can—as we are—to ensure that the road map's implementation is as consistent as possible with the time line.

Ernie Ross: My right hon. Friend will be aware that there is despair among the Palestinian community here and in the middle east following the meeting between Prime Minister Sharon and President Bush and the subsequent hype made of it by Prime Minister Sharon. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the communiqué issued on behalf of the Quartet last Tuesday makes it clear that final negotiated positions with regard to refugees and borders must be based on resolutions 242, 338, 1397 and 1515, the Madrid peace process and the Prince Abdullah initiative, which was accepted in Beirut, and that that is our Government's position?

Jack Straw: I confirm all of that. I also remind the House, as I did a few minutes ago, that the United States is a key member of the Quartet, and that it signed up to the road map and to these conclusions. Although I understand the concern of many of our friends in the Palestinian community, both here and abroad, about what happened in the rose garden three weeks ago, I ask those friends to examine what President Bush actually said. President Bush mentioned the road map six times, and has made it clear, both then and subsequently, that he stands by the road map and resolutions 242, 338 and 1397, and that that includes no prejudice or prejudging on the final status negotiations.

Nick Gibb: Does the Foreign Secretary accept that the proposal for disengagement from Gaza is the first step towards the creation of an independent Palestinian state; is very much in line with the requirements of the road map; and indeed is similar to proposals made at Camp David four years ago, which is why, as he said, it has the broad support of the Quartet?

Jack Straw: Yes, I do. Whenever the withdrawal from the occupied territories occurs, it is bound to be on a phased basis. We should not get into a position where, because we cannot have everything all at once, we take nothing. That is why the withdrawal policy was welcomed, and I hope that the Israeli Government can resurrect it, notwithstanding the problems with their referendum.

Thailand

David Taylor: What assessment he has made of the impact of violence in southern Thailand on the security of British tourists; and if he will make a statement.

Mike O'Brien: On 28 April in the south of Thailand, 200 militants took part in well co-ordinated attacks in 10 locations, which resulted in the deaths of 112 people, including five members of the security forces. Our assessment of the impact of the violence on the security of British nationals is reflected in our travel advice—we currently advise against all non-essential travel to four provinces in the south of Thailand.

David Taylor: The advice to travellers given on the FCO website is generally first rate, but the advice on Thailand needs to be extended and updated. Does the Minister agree that it should now reflect the real risk of insurgency travelling north to the tourist areas, in light of the widening void between the mega-rich lifestyle of the elite surrounding Thaksin Shinawatra in Buddhist Bangkok and the grinding poverty endured by those in the Muslim southern provinces?

Mike O'Brien: We updated travel advice on terrorism in southern Thailand on five occasions during the course of this year, including on 8 April and 28 April. We recommend against all non-essential travel to the four far southern provinces of Patani, Yala, Narathiwat and Songkhla. However, I take on board my hon. Friend's suggestion that we should consider issuing broader advice, and I will listen to the views of officials who consider such matters. As he says, it is very important that we give people practical advice on which they can rely.

David Cameron: Notwithstanding what the Minister says about giving travel advice, does he agree that the Foreign Office must recognise, first, that there is no such thing as an entirely safe country; and secondly, that Muslim extremists aim to put off any contact between western tourists and Muslim countries? Does he agree that if travel advice becomes over-prescriptive, the terrorists are winning?

Mike O'Brien: We cannot provide travel advice that covers all eventualities, but we endeavour to ensure that it is as practical, objective, accurate and up to date as possible in terms of helping British nationals to make decisions about travelling abroad. In respect of southern Thailand, we have no evidence that the violence is directly linked to international terrorism. However, the hon. Gentleman is right that when we give advice we must be careful to ensure that people are aware of the general problems, not only in south-east Asia, but across much of the world. Terrorism is a threat to us all. The terrorists are not winning, but they certainly remain a major threat.

David Chaytor: Is it not the case that apart from the violence in the south, Thailand is generally a difficult country for Europeans to visit? Two of my constituents have recently had appalling difficulties in Thailand: one faces a sentence of life imprisonment; the other has seen a member of their family murdered. Can my hon. Friend assure the House that his advice to the British embassy in Bangkok is that it should provide the maximum possible assistance to relatives of British citizens facing difficulties in Thailand in order to support them when they have to visit to deal with such problems? The British embassy—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I think that the Minister will be able to answer.

Mike O'Brien: More than 700,000 British nationals travel to Thailand every year. Our consular staff in Thailand and in London will do everything that they properly can to provide them with appropriate consular assistance where it is required. My hon. Friend will appreciate that among those 700,000 people, some have very serious priority problems, while many others require elements of help. Therefore, staff need to try to allocate their assistance as best and as appropriately as they can.

Zimbabwe

Hugo Swire: What recent discussions he has had with President Mbeki of South Africa concerning the future of Zimbabwe.

Chris Mullin: We are in regular contact with the South African Government on the issue of Zimbabwe. The Prime Minister discussed Zimbabwe with President Mbeki when they recently spoke following the election victory by the African National Congress, and my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has regularly discussed it with South Africa's Foreign Minister. I will have further discussions when I visit South Africa later this month.

Hugo Swire: Every hour of every day, thousands of Zimbabweans continue to flee across the Limpopo from Mugabe's nightmare into President Mbeki's South Africa—this at a time when even a respected local journal such as the Kenya Times is joining the general chorus of condemnation of President Mbeki's inactivity. We know that the Foreign Secretary is still of the belief that President Mbeki is key to unlocking the unhappy situation in Zimbabwe, but does the Minister honestly believe that President Mbeki has either the intention or the willpower to do so, or is he merely clutching at straws?

Chris Mullin: Yes, we do believe that President Mbeki and his Government are making a serious effort to resolve the situation in Zimbabwe, and he has not been inactive. He has been extremely active, but the trouble is that he is dealing with extremely difficult customers, as we all are, in Mr. Mugabe and his cronies.

Helen Jackson: Is my hon. Friend aware of the recent visit to the House of Commons by the then Deputy Speaker of the South African Parliament, the hon. Baleka Mbete—you will be delighted to know, Mr. Speaker, that she is now the Speaker—and of her clear recognition of the key role that South Africa will have to play in any change of Government and leadership in Zimbabwe? She also made the point, however, that such change will have to be brought about within the democracy and structures of Zimbabwe, rather than by any major inward force from other countries.

Chris Mullin: Yes, I was aware of the visit of the Deputy Speaker—now the Speaker—although I did not meet her. It is true, as my hon. Friend says, that any solution to the problem in Zimbabwe will inevitably involve South Africa, which is the main player. Any differences that we have with South Africa involve tactics rather than principle.

John Bercow: Given that the articulate, charismatic and democratically elected mayor of Harare, Elias Mudzuri, was first suspended and then removed from office, and that the Mugabe thugs are now seeking to evict him and his family from their home—which I had the privilege of visiting in February this year—will the Minister accept the urgent need to beseech the President of South Africa to stop appeasing the tyrant Mugabe and to start insisting that the Southern African Development Community norms and standards, according to which the South African elections were conducted, are the norms and standards by which the Government of Zimbabwe should also be conducted?

Chris Mullin: I completely agree with the hon. Gentleman, and I am sure that the South African Government would too. I do not think that it is necessary to beseech the South African Government. We have a regular dialogue with them, based on mutual respect, but at the end of the day, the problem is being caused by Mr. Mugabe and ZANU-PF, and by their unwillingness to engage with their opponents.

Kate Hoey: Is it not now time for the British and South African Governments to make a joint approach to the United Nations to make it clear that there can be no free and fair parliamentary elections in Zimbabwe next year unless there is a change of Government there? This has to be said clearly now. Zimbabwe needs free and fair elections, but it is not going to get them. President Mbeki and our Prime Minister should go to the United Nations to get this whole issue discussed.

Chris Mullin: We would be happy to join in any initiative that the South Africans thought worth while. The problem with going to the United Nations—certainly to the Security Council—is that there has to be an international dispute before the Security Council will become involved. The matter is therefore unlikely to discussed by the Security Council unless the surrounding countries signify that they want it to be. In regard to the United Nations Commission on Human Rights at Geneva, we and our EU colleagues have raised the issue of Zimbabwe there for the last three years in succession, but on each occasion our motion has fallen to a non-action motion prompted by the African states.

Nicholas Winterton: The Minister is well aware that President Thabo Mbeki, whose African National Congress party swept back to power in South Africa recently, is absolutely critical to the solution of the problems in Zimbabwe. The Minister will also be aware that those who can help to restructure Zimbabwe continue to flee the country—many of them going to South Africa or coming here to the United Kingdom—with absolutely nothing, because they can bring nothing out. Have the Government considered discussing with President Mbeki the matter of the supply of power to Zimbabwe, because the Republic of South Africa plays a critical part in that regard? I do not want the people of Zimbabwe to suffer any more than they are already, but could that be a way of bringing additional pressure to bear on President Mugabe?

Chris Mullin: That is certainly an issue that has come up from time to time. It would be a very large step to take, partly because it would inflict even more suffering on innocent Zimbabweans, and I know that that is not the hon. Gentleman's intention. I think that is all I can say about it for the time being.

Zimbabwe (Sporting Links)

Peter Pike: What his Department's policy is on sporting links with Zimbabwe, with particular reference to cricket.

Jack Straw: As the House will be aware, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport and I met officials from the England and Wales Cricket Board last week to discuss the proposed tour. Our view is clear: we would prefer the tour to be postponed until the situation in Zimbabwe improves, but the decision to tour is one for the cricketing authorities to take. The Government have no power to instruct people not to leave this country to play sport abroad. We do not have state-run cricket in this country, nor should we. We have great sympathy for the position in which the England and Wales Cricket Board finds itself, having been presented by the International Cricket Council with a choice between touring and facing extremely serious financial penalties.

Peter Pike: I recognise the position that my right hon. Friend has set out, but he will acknowledge that the Labour party never pussyfooted around taking sporting sanctions against South Africa. That played a vital part in ending apartheid. Will he say to the cricket people that the tour should not take place, and say it loudly and clearly, because I believe that that is what the overwhelming majority in the House believes we should be saying?

Jack Straw: I accept the sentiments expressed by my hon. Friend entirely, but there is a fundamental difference, which is that while we backed sanctions against sporting links with South Africa—I have to say that they were, as I recall, rather resisted by Conservative Members—we did so as part of an international consensus, under the Gleneagles agreement. What, sadly, has become all too clear is that there is no such consensus, even within the ICC—indeed, far from it. It is that which places the England and Wales Cricket Board in this very difficult and untenable position.

Michael Ancram: Does the Foreign Secretary agree that the argument over the England cricket tour of Zimbabwe in the autumn is not so much between politics and sport as between morality and money? I accept that the Government do not have the power to ban the tour, but if, as he says, and I use his word, he would "prefer" that the tour did not take place or was postponed, why will he not give a clearer indication to the ECB, which could allow the England team not to tour without incurring financial penalty?
	Will the Foreign Secretary therefore use this opportunity to state clearly and unequivocally—I choose these words carefully—that owing to the horrifying and deteriorating human rights situation in Mugabe's Zimbabwe, the Government not only do not support the tour, but that, if they had the necessary powers, they would instruct the ECB not to proceed with it?

Jack Straw: There is no disagreement of principle between both sides, but the right hon. and learned Gentleman is trying to have it both ways. We do not have a power in law to ban people from leaving this country or playing sport. I rather fancy that if we tried that in any other circumstances he would be the first to complain. Indeed, his leader would certainly complain.
	I have reread a recent speech by the Leader of the Opposition called, appropriately, "The British Dream", in which he says:
	"We have a State that does too much, that interferes too much".
	That would be the objection. The problem is this: if there had been a form of words that would have satisfied not just the England and Wales Cricket Board, which does not want to tour, but critically, the rules of the International Cricket Council, we would have offered that form of words. However, it has become increasingly clear that such forms of words do not exist, and I am not going to pretend to the House, the country and the ICC that we have statutory powers to ban people from going abroad when we do not.

Lindsay Hoyle: I hear what my right hon. Friend says, but does he not feel that the lives of cricketers would be put at risk if they were to tour Zimbabwe and that, on those grounds alone, we ought to be able to send out a clear message, "You are not to tour because of that risk."? Also, the danger is that cricket will be the loser and Mugabe the winner.

Jack Straw: My hon. Friend raises an important point about security, which we also discussed separately with the England and Wales Cricket Board. If there is a security problem which we judge would affect the personal security of English and Welsh cricketers if they go there, we will make that clear. As we told the England and Wales Cricket Board, however, we need to make that assessment much nearer the time.

Peter Lilley: Is the Foreign Secretary aware that although there is a consensus in the House that the Mugabe regime is hideous and evil, some of us do not believe that sport should be used as a political weapon? The choice of whom one plays sports with is a moral issue, and the Government should keep out of that. The most pathetic position of all is for the Government to express a desire for the tour not to take place, and to do nothing to implement that desire, financially or otherwise.

Jack Straw: Despite the last sentence, I take that as an objection to the position taken by the right hon. Gentleman's own Front Bench.

Iraq

Joan Ruddock: If he will make a statement about the current situation in the British-controlled area of southern Iraq.

Tony Lloyd: If he will make a statement on the situation in Iraq.

Jack Straw: The situation in Iraq is overshadowed by the evidence of appalling and disgusting human rights abuses in Abu Ghraib prison in Baghdad, for which there is and there can be no excuse whatever. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said last Wednesday,
	"it is what we went to Iraq to get rid of, not to perpetuate."—[Official Report, 5 May 2004; Vol. 420, c. 1336.]
	The House will be aware that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence made a statement yesterday that covered the separate allegations concerning British forces. Inquiries are continuing, but I know that, overwhelmingly, British forces are carrying out their difficult and dangerous duties according to the law and to their finest traditions.
	On the political front in Iraq, United Nations Special Representative Lakhdar Brahimi continues his work to identify an interim caretaker government. Meanwhile, there are active discussions with partners on a new Security Council resolution to provide for the transition to a sovereign Iraqi state. In the south, there have been a number of engagements with insurgents. Overall, however, conditions for people in that area continue to improve. In Basra alone, 70 to 80 per cent. now have access to running water, and more than 90 schools and 48 health care projects have been completed.

Joan Ruddock: I have now had the opportunity to read the ICRC report in full. Will my right hon. Friend accept that its criticisms, particularly of brutal arrest techniques and disappearances, apply to all coalition forces, that we are in a coalition, and that those sickening pictures of American abuse shame us all by association? To whom did Sir Jeremy Greenstock speak when he received the copy of the Red Cross report? Was it Britain's failure to influence the Americans as regards the abuse that was a factor in Sir Jeremy's premature departure from Iraq?

Jack Straw: My hon. Friend is right that these images, and the evidence that they portray, are a shame on all of us. They are utterly shameful, disgusting and disgraceful, and they would be if they had been perpetrated by any regime, but they are all the worse for the fact that they have been perpetrated by forces of a member of the international community. I do not accept her suggestion, however, that responsibility for dealing with matters that lie within the United States' sectors is also shared by the United Kingdom.
	The ICRC made some criticisms last year, which are set out in the report. I must make it clear to my hon. Friend, however, that when I met Dr. Kellenberger in May last year, he was reassuring, of his own volition, about the conditions that the ICRC were at that stage reporting. She will also know that the incidents that have been alleged to be behind the pictures that have been shown in British newspapers are the subject of a thorough investigation. I also reassure her that Sir Jeremy's retirement, after a previous retirement, from his position in Baghdad, had nothing whatever to do with the ICRC report.

Tony Lloyd: Does my right hon. Friend accept that this marks a new low point in the credibility of the allied occupation of Iraq? It is now obvious that the unilateral strategy emanating from the White House is not helping the situation. What does my right hon. Friend intend to do to involve neighbouring countries with which we have good relations, such as Turkey, Syria and Iran, or to respond to President Chirac's wish for an international conference like the one that was held in Bonn after Afghanistan? Such action must be in the interests of both Britain and the people of Iraq.

Jack Straw: The allegations and clear evidence of abuse in the United States sector are very damaging: there is no question about that, nor should there be any pretence to the contrary. I should also make it clear that, as President Bush has asserted, in no sense was this supported or connived at by the United States Administration, who are as appalled by the evidence as we are.
	I agree about the importance of involving neighbouring countries. I talked about exactly that during a conversation with Sergei Lavrov, the new Russian Foreign Minister, on Sunday. There is a proposal—included in Lakhdar Brahimi's suggestions—for a conference of Iraqis which might conceivably be held just outside Iraq, which would provide an endorsement and greater legitimacy for the caretaker Government. We are pursuing the idea of a conference of the neighbours separately.

Menzies Campbell: Does the Foreign Secretary accept that the United Kingdom is paying a considerable moral price for the reports of recent days on the conduct of forces in Iraq? Does he accept that the closeness of the relationship with the United States means that Britain and British forces will be answerable, in the minds of the Iraqi people, for anything done by anyone in the name of the coalition? In the light of his reference to Lakhdar Brahimi, and adapting the words of the Prime Minister, may we now take it that the United Nations is no longer part of the problem but is providing the only solution?

Jack Straw: I do not accept the first point. On the basis of my discussions and my knowledge of the way in which British forces are operating in the south, I believe that their professionalism, integrity and subscription to the rule of our law and international law are well known to the vast majority of Iraqis. Of course they do not want any occupation of their land to continue for longer than is necessary, but they recognise the benefits that have accrued from the way in which British forces have operated.
	We have never suggested for a second that the United Nations is a problem. It has been part of the solution to the problem of Iraq for a great many years, but since the end of the major conflict in April we have sought and actively obtained United Nations involvement. Had it not been for the massacre at the UN headquarters in Iraq on 19 August, involving the killing of special representative Sergio Vieira de Mello, the UN would have been far more engaged than has been possible; but that, I am afraid, was a decision made by the terrorists and not by us.

Andrew Robathan: Will the Foreign Secretary comment on the Amnesty International report that is splashed over the newspapers today? An eight-year-old girl was allegedly shot by British soldiers. I have been told that, in fact, a stone-throwing crowd surrounding two Warrior armoured personnel carriers fired over the heads of the crowd, and the girl was subsequently discovered dead. Blood money is involved. Will the Foreign Secretary comment on those appalling allegations, and ensure that they are investigated swiftly so that our soldiers can be cleared?

Jack Straw: I can reassure the hon. Gentleman: the allegations are being investigated very swiftly. I hope to be able to tell the House more during the current Session, but it would be inappropriate for me to say more now, given that an investigation is under way.

Jon Owen Jones: The Foreign Secretary may know that in the last couple of weeks I have met two Iraqi constituents who have returned from Iraq after several months in Basra and Baghdad. The two have similar tales to tell. Both found it convenient to bribe their way into the country via Syria and Jordan, which tells its own story; both talk of the difference between the approaches of British and American troops. They support our action, but are extremely concerned about the way in which, even before the latest revelations, American behaviour had alienated and appalled supporters of the coalition—and the position is becoming far, far worse. What will we be able to do if we cannot influence the American Government?

Jack Straw: I am grateful for what my hon. Friend says. The American Government are well aware of the damage done, not only by allegations but by evidence of abuse, to their reputation and to the reputation of the coalition more generally. That is clear from the observations made at the highest level by the United States Administration. As for what we are doing about the situation, we are working in our way in the southern sector. Yes, we are leading by example, but we are also engaged in active discussions with President Bush, Secretary Powell and other senior members of the United States Administration.

Michael Ancram: On what date, and how, did the Foreign Secretary become aware of the contents and existence of the ICRC report, which was given to Sir Jeremy Greenstock in February?

Jack Straw: I became aware of it at the weekend.

Michael Ancram: Is the Foreign Secretary seriously suggesting that Foreign Office Ministers were kept in the dark about that important report for some two months? I do not believe that the people of this country find that position credible.
	Does the Foreign Secretary not realise how much damage the growing litany of disclaimers of knowledge and responsibility by Ministers is now doing to public confidence in the Government's handling of the situation in Iraq? Does he appreciate that, with the handover of power back to the Iraqis only 50 days away, the continuing lack of clarity on vital issues such as whether further troop deployments from the UK will become necessary, to whom precisely the handover will be made, and what the subsequent relationship between our forces and the new Iraqi Government will be, only adds to the uncertainty? The restoration of confidence is now crucial and urgent. Has not the time come for the Government to initiate a debate in the House on the overall situation in Iraq so that Ministers can comprehensively and unequivocally deal with those issues and, we hope, create a sense of competence and direction again?

Jack Straw: On that last point, I am always happy to debate these matters. That is a question for the usual channels, but I am happy either to make a statement or for there to be a debate on Iraq—or, indeed, both. I enjoy it—it is important that I should come to the House and that the Government's position should be properly explained.
	On the right hon. and learned Gentleman's first point, I assume that he was not suggesting that when I said that I became aware of the report at the weekend and read the full report yesterday, I was telling the House an untruth. If he were suggesting that, he would need to consider his position. He will know, having read the report, that it refers overwhelmingly to allegations of abuse in respect of the area operated by the United States.
	On the right hon. and learned Gentleman's points about the political process, let me say this. We agreed through the Iraq governing council and the coalition provisional authority on 15 November 2003 an accelerated timetable for the handover of sovereignty. That will take place on 30 June, and we are now working extremely hard to ensure that all the building blocks for that transfer of sovereignty are there. We are co-operating well with Ambassador Lakhdar Brahimi of the United Nations, and we hope to have a United Nations Security Council resolution in place before the end of this month.

Jeremy Corbyn: May I ask the Foreign Secretary to confirm some points about the ICRC report? We learned yesterday from the Defence Secretary that the report was given to Paul Bremer, who shared the contents with Sir Jeremy Greenstock in February. The Foreign Secretary tells us that he received a copy of the report only this weekend, which was the second weekend in May. What happened to the report in the meantime, with whom did Sir Jeremy Greenstock discuss it, and where in the British Government was it sent after his receipt of it?

Jack Straw: My understanding is that Sir Jeremy Greenstock did not in fact receive the report, notwithstanding the suggestions made in the newspapers today. It was seen by a legal adviser to the British part of the coalition provisional authority in Baghdad, and was passed at the time to the British and to the CPA there. I cannot give my hon. Friend the exact date for that now, but I will be happy to do so by way of a written answer. A copy was subsequently received in the British Foreign Office and we can say with the benefit of hindsight that it should have been made available to Ministers; but as it happens, it was not.

Adzhara

Angus Robertson: What his Department's latest assessment is of the situation in the autonomous Georgian region of Adzhara.

Bill Rammell: I welcome Abashidze's departure from Adzhara and I am pleased that the tense situation there has been resolved without violence. That will help President Saakashvili's attempt to build a democratic and stable Georgia. I also welcome the constructive role played by the Russian Government in bringing this about.

Angus Robertson: I thank the Minister for his reply. Is he concerned about the fact that the Georgian Government are taking steps to expel Mr. Plamen Nikolov—special representative of the Council of Europe's Secretary-General Walter Schwimmer—following statements by Mr. Schwimmer on Adzhara? Does the Minister think that that helps or damages Georgia's international reputation, at a time when its Government say that they want to enhance the country's democratic and human right standards?

Bill Rammell: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving me notice of this question. I have seen today's press reports that Plamen Nikolov, special representative of the Council of Europe's Secretary-General Schwimmer in Georgia, is being expelled, and I am concerned at that development. As I have said, much progress has been made in Adzhara, and that has been widely welcomed internationally. In that regard, it is critical that Georgia continue to work with the Council of Europe to fulfil its obligations.

Valerie Davey: Bristol constituents who are actively involved in the twinning of Bristol and Tbilisi have followed developments in Georgia with some interest, as Members can imagine. What active role are the British Government taking in ensuring greater stability for that country in future?

Bill Rammell: We, along with the wider international community, have an interest in achieving a secure and stable Georgia. We are investing £2.5 million through the Department for International Development, we have a special representative in the region and we are advising and assisting the parliamentary reform process and defence sector reform. So it is fair to say that we are critically engaged and doing everything that we can to take Georgia forward in this important task.

Cyprus

Bob Spink: If he will make a statement on the prospects for the reunification of Cyprus.

Denis MacShane: I draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to the Foreign Secretary's written statement to the House on 28 April.
	The reunification of Cyprus remains the Government's objective, but there is no immediate prospect of a resumption of talks. We await the UN Secretary-General's report on his good offices mission to Cyprus, which we expect later this month.

Bob Spink: Can the Minister confirm that the Government respect the overwhelming democratic decision of the Greek Cypriots on the Annan plan? Will he confirm that this was a clear and unequivocal rejection of a bad plan, and will he commit this Government to working towards a new plan which, unlike the old one, will respect the existing UN resolutions and international law, and be for the benefit and justice of both communities in Cyprus?

Denis MacShane: Of course we respect the decision of the Cypriot people. Members of the House and different Governments have dealt with this problem over a number of years. Everyone of good will concluded that the Annan plan, which had the overwhelming backing of all European and other member states of the international democratic community, was the best way forward. There is no other possible basis for a settlement. If we want a reunited Cyprus, we will have to come back to the Annan plan or something very close to it.

Andrew Love: I welcome the Minister's statement and his acceptance of the democratic decision of the Cypriot people. Will he also accept that the international community did not fully understand the Cypriot community's fears and concerns in respect of the decisions put to them? Notwithstanding his comments today, will he redouble his efforts with the UN, and with the EU in particular, to ensure that this process is begun at the earliest opportunity?

Denis MacShane: My hon. Friend is right. I understand the difficulties associated with the way in which people voted in that referendum, but as I said, we have looked at the plan in some detail and it is very difficult to find an alternative, because we have to get support from all those involved. Leadership was there in Cyprus, but perhaps it was not expressed in the referendum, given that people have to take political positions. A lot of rethinking is taking place on the island.
	The position of northern Cyprus is now going to be very different and I would urge all hon. Members who have a deep care for the future of the island to work constructively and positively towards what will have to be a compromise. That will require leadership to bring people to support it. A divided Cyprus is no help to the people of that beautiful and wonderful island and no help to all who want to see its future settled before too long.

Nick Hawkins: Does the Minister recognise that a plan that was perceived by the Greek Cypriot communities as being far too heavily stacked in favour of the interests of Turkey and the illegally occupied area of northern Cyprus was never likely to command support? Hon. Members on both sides of the House who have worked with the people of Cyprus over many years recognise that we have to start looking again, as my hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Bob Spink) rightly said, at the resolutions that have been made over a longer period. Far too many of them were ignored in the Annan plan. Does the Minister accept that the Government have a responsibility to work with President Papadopulos to produce a new plan that will fairly balance the interests of both communities? The current plan was far too stacked in one direction ever to have a hope of commanding the support of the Greek Cypriot community.

Denis MacShane: I have been listening to Cyprus debates and questions during my 10 years in the House, and believe that this plan offered more than any previous one. Any plan has to be acceptable to both sides. Large sections of the Cypriot political community were in favour of the plan to begin with, until the politics changed dramatically with a rejectionist front growing ever wider. I like to imagine that a better set of solutions could be rustled up to solve the problem, but the hon. Gentleman, while he is still a Member of the House, will have to tell his friends in Cyprus that the way to win people's support is to be there, leading them. Such leadership was not much in evidence towards the end of the process. Britain cannot provide a solution. We need a UN solution, an international solution or a European solution. Some people in Cyprus said yes; alas, others did not.

Chris Bryant: Later this year, the European Union will have to decide whether to allow Turkey to enter the formal process of becoming a full candidate for EU membership. Can that happen without the reunification of Cyprus?

Denis MacShane: Of course. We said clearly that Cyprus could enter the EU, uniquely among all member states, without having first resolved its own internal divisions. If we have behaved honourably towards our friends in the Government of Cyprus, we also have to behave honourably towards the Government of Turkey, who have made immense strides on the Cypriot question, making concessions that were literally unthinkable only 12 months ago, let alone 18 months or five years ago. Turkey has to meet the Copenhagen criteria and all the other norms required of her to start EU accession talks. On Cyprus, I believe that the Turkish Government cannot be faulted. Recent meetings in Greece between Mr. Erdogan and Mr. Karamanlis very much emphasise that point.

Richard Spring: I agree with the Minister that the Turkish Government played a most constructive role in the lead-up to the referendum, further enhancing their credibility on the path to EU accession. Equally, however, does he agree that, in the light of past tragic memories, the stationing of Turkish troops in Cyprus post settlement presents a particular problem that must be addressed if fresh progress is to be made?

Denis MacShane: I cannot object to any proposal that the Turkish or any other Government might make in respect of troop numbers on the island. They were to come down dramatically over time. Turkey, along with Greece and the United Kingdom, is a guarantor power, but it was not on that issue alone that the Greek Cypriots voted no. We have to look forward to a more positive approach in Cyprus. I think that the time may come sooner than we expect when moves are made towards that double yes. I hope that it comes as soon as possible. I urge all hon. Members—and I know how passionately they are involved in Cypriot matters in their constituencies—to find a language that allows a way forward for Cyprus, rather than digging deeper into the trenches.

Palestinian Authority

James Purnell: What steps the Government are taking to support a more effective security force for the Palestinian Authority.

Bill Rammell: The UK is supporting the Palestinian Authority in its efforts to improve its effectiveness in delivering security in the occupied territories, both for their own people and to prevent attacks against Israel. We are offering advice, encouragement and some limited practical support.

James Purnell: Both sides of the House want a two-stage solution to be achieved, based on a viable Palestinian state. Does my hon. Friend agree that a key part of the Palestinian Authority becoming a state is for it to show its control over security? Does he think that the key obstacle to its doing that is a willingness to use its capability, or the capability itself? What steps can we take to help the authority to achieve that goal?

Bill Rammell: My hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that, for the authority to become a state, the responsibilities of being a state need to be taken on. That is why we are helping and assisting as we are. The Palestinian plans appear to be a good approach to addressing some of the key security challenges. The international community, through the Quartet and other mechanisms, has urged the Palestinians to demonstrate 100 per cent. effort on security. Some effort has been made, but we believe that more can be done.

Points of Order

Michael Ancram: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I seek your assistance? Over the past 24 hours, there has been a glaring inconsistency in statements made from the Dispatch Box by two senior Cabinet Ministers on a matter of great importance. Yesterday, the Secretary of State for Defence, referring to the report from the International Committee of the Red Cross, said:
	"May I make it clear that there was no concealment? The report to Ambassador Bremer was passed to Sir Jeremy Greenstock, then to the military representative in Iraq and from there to the Permanent Joint Headquarters."—[Official Report, 9 June 2004; Vol. 421, c. 33.]
	Earlier, in answer to a question, the Foreign Secretary told us that the report was not passed to Sir Jeremy Greenstock. That inconsistency is highly damaging in the current situation. I ask for your advice, Mr. Speaker, as to what action might be taken for it to be clarified as soon as possible.

Mr. Speaker: Before the Foreign Secretary rises on a point of order, I must point out to the right hon. and learned Gentleman that it is not for the Chair to deal with any apparent inconsistencies between Ministers' statements. Of course, he can always table other parliamentary questions.

Jack Straw: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am grateful to you, in any event: this is not a glaring inconsistency. I made it clear that the report was received by staff in Sir Jeremy Greenstock's office, and I fully endorse what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence said—that there was no concealment, and that the report was passed on to the military representative in Iraq, and from there to the permanent joint headquarters. However, I will ensure that a clarification is made to the House, later on today or tomorrow morning.

Jeremy Corbyn: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. The Foreign Secretary said that the report had been sent to the Foreign Office but had not been relayed to him, whereas yesterday the Secretary of State for Defence said that it was sent to the permanent joint headquarters, where it has apparently lain for some three months. We need more than just a clarification: we need a statement about the progress of the document. From which hand to which hand has it passed, in Iraq and in this country? What has happened to civil servants, in either the Ministry of Defence or the Foreign Office, who apparently did not consider that the report was important enough to go to Ministers? We really need a full explanation of that.

Mr. Speaker: These are not matters for the Chair.

Mark Simmonds: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I want to raise a totally separate matter. Yesterday, the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Secretary of State for Education and Skills announced key policy changes to the delivery and working of the modern apprenticeships scheme, an essential and important education policy area. The announcement was made not in this House, but in a department store in Oxford street.
	I am aware, Mr. Speaker, of your enthusiasm and keenness to have policy announcements made in this Chamber first. Have you received any approaches from Ministers to make a statement to the House about this change to what is a key area of policy? If not, is there anything that you can do to put pressure on Ministers to make such a statement, so that hon. Members can exercise their democratic right to ask appropriate questions on this key policy change?

Mr. Speaker: I have to be careful on this point. The hon. Gentleman says that it was a policy change, but I will have to look and see whether there was a policy change. All Governments are keen to try to train apprentices, and Ministers have to be able to make public announcements if there has been no policy change and the announcement is consistent with present Government policy. I will look into the matter.

Prime Minister (Direct Election)

Graham Allen: I beg to move,
	That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision for the direct election of the Prime Minister; to require such elections to be held on the same day as a General Election; to make consequential provision in relation to the office and powers of the Prime Minister; to make consequential amendments to the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000; and for connected purposes.
	This Bill—the last great extension of the franchise—would symbolise our democratic maturity, convert our Parliament from an electoral college into a legislature and legalise an Executive currently built on smoke and mirrors. Stop me if you have heard this before, Mr. Speaker, but the prime ministership over many decades has evolved into an accidental presidency. The result is a dysfunctional democracy, in which power is over-concentrated, over-centralized and under-controlled. Our democracy is out of balance and dangerously short on popular consent and participation.
	More than two years ago, I introduced a Bill to codify and legalise the massive, unwritten powers of the prime ministership. The Bill I introduce today goes one step further: it seeks to make the Prime Minister directly elected by the British people. I base the Bill on the simple principle that in a democracy anyone who exercises serious political power should be elected by the people.
	The Bill represents a reality check for the British constitution—the emperor has no election. That realisation ends the laughable self-deception and the comforting myths of parliamentary sovereignty—that, somehow, the Prime Minister exercises power only by consent of Parliament, and that the Executive is under the control of the legislature. While my proposal seems revolutionary in this place, it is commonplace in most other democracies. Indeed, were, for example, the US or French chief executives to seek power without direct elections, it would be not only risible but illegal. Only in Britain—the last country in the empire—are the natives still not trusted to make this, the most important of political choices.
	Even from Labour Members, I have been surprised to hear that the electorate cannot be trusted with a direct election. It is argued that they might elect some television celebrity—arguments that once found a voice in this Chamber from those who argued against votes for women and the working classes. They were not to be trusted to make the key decisions in their political lives.
	Such a settlement is not directed at the current incumbent. Were we allowed to elect a Prime Minister, I would work to ensure, as I have done before, that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister would be our candidate. He is by a mile the best unelected President we have, and would be by a mile the best directly elected Prime Minister we could have. The Bill is not about personality—it is about power. It recognises that the power of the key office in the British state has grown inexorably, without the design or intention of its occupant, in response to the demands and pressures on the British Government. That power does not need to be weakened, but it needs to be held properly to account. Self-evidently, that cannot be done through a Parliament that is controlled by the Executive, as was demonstrated last year when we were unable even to recall ourselves to debate the Iraq war. That power was held by the very office that we sought to discuss and to influence. It must, therefore, be made accountable to the British people by direct election, and that is what the Bill will do.
	The Bill recognises that the British prime ministership has turned into a colossus; it is the only game in town. There is no office like it in the western world. No other democracy has one person at the head of Government, and in control of the party and the legislature. All political jobs, patronage, policy and image come from the same source—all are without effective democratic scrutiny or ratification. No other Head of Government in a western democracy has so much control and so many rewards and honours to give out.
	Almost everything in British politics and the state now happens by the will of the prime ministership. A small and diminishing band believes fondly that we control that power when we elect a Parliament, yet in reality, barring the occasional electoral fluke, Parliament is rarely able to scrutinise the use of prime ministerial power, let alone temper or modify it. Such is the power of the institution that those parliamentarians who tried to influence policy on Iraq were told that we could do so only by threatening to end the prime ministership itself. As in 1640, Parliament was told, "Raise your standard and kill the king if you dare". The same was true of the rebellions over the poll tax and, more recently, over foundation hospitals and tuition fees.
	Power is now so concentrated in No. 10 that Parliament cannot challenge policy without challenging the prime ministership itself. That is playground politics. We all know that there has to be a better way—a way that ends monopoly politics and does not fear, but revels in, other political institutions as partners and equals, adding value to the legitimate concerns and responsibilities of the prime ministership.
	We are heading towards record low turnout for the European and local elections, and no doubt afterwards we shall come to this place and sagely talk about "disengagement from politics", "voter apathy" and, perhaps, about a new set of tricks: voting at 16, voting by text message, all-postal ballots, voting at weekends or voting in supermarkets. The cure for voter apathy is not to make voting easier, but to make it more worth while—above all by voting for the most important office in British politics.
	The Bill would automatically double the worth and value of voting—it is a two-for-one offer. Instead of voting for an MP simply as a proxy for a Prime Minister—a member of a prime ministerial electoral college whose useful political life is extinguished within 24 hours, once their nominee goes to the palace—voters would choose an MP to represent them or their community and, separately, elect the best person to be our country's Prime Minister. With an independent mandate from their electors, MPs will regain the authority and confidence to do the job they cannot do now, which is, as Gladstone said,
	"not to run the country but to hold to account those who do".
	Parliament would cease to be the world's most sophisticated political prison and would become an independent legislature, with its own life separate from Government. There would be two valid independent viewpoints in politics: a separation of Executive and legislature, maturely cohabiting, debating and reconciling, even if the prime ministership and Parliament happened to be held by different parties. People will participate and people will vote if politics is repatriated to them and to their directly elected representatives and no longer confined to the incestuous relationship between No. 10 and its media courtiers.
	We cannot go on asking people to vote for a myth. That is what we do now, when we ask people to pretend that they are voting for a sovereign Parliament, in control of the Executive, the arbiter of our nation's fate. This Bill, or something like it, will appear in some party's manifesto some time, just as inevitably as allowing the people to vote for a constitution has done in recent weeks. It would do many things: it would make an honest man or woman out of every future Prime Minister; it would create a free, independent Parliament; and it would revive political interest and make voting meaningful again—but, above all, it would be the last great extension of the franchise, standing in the long, proud history of my party—a democratic coming of age, enabling the British people directly to elect, for the first time, their own political leader.

Michael Fabricant: The hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) is to be congratulated on introducing this thought-provoking, but ultimately terrifying Bill—for if it were to become law, the last current Prime Minister will have achieved his final objective: to become President Blair in reality. With that, we should no doubt see Blair Force 1 replacing the Queen's Flight and a presidential coat of arms flying over No. 10 Downing street, or perhaps even Buckingham palace—who knows? Presidential decree would replace Cabinet government—but then what is new?
	We already know that the decision to hold a referendum on the European constitution was made without any reference at all to the Cabinet, but the hon. Gentleman knows all that. Back in November 2001, he published "The Last Prime Minister: Being Honest about the UK Presidency", in which he says, as he said today, that a presidency has arrived in our nation in all but name. However, I oppose the principle of an elected Prime Minister. It would give additional legitimacy to the confused state of affairs that we already suffer under today, and it would sit uneasily and uncomfortably with the parliamentary democracy that we enjoy and which, in itself, forms part of a constitutional monarchy.
	Our parliamentary system is not compatible with a nationally elected Head of Government. First, with the principle of primus inter pares, the Prime Minister—any Prime Minister—must enjoy the confidence of his or her party. Without that, no British political leader in government—and, yes, in opposition too—can or should survive. The appointment of a leader who does not enjoy the overwhelming support of his or her parliamentary party is doomed to failure. In that connection, I would dearly love to be a fly on the wall at meetings of the parliamentary Labour party—particularly so after 10 June.
	So, do we wish to change the nature of our parliamentary democracy to become some sort of hybrid between a parliamentary and presidential system? I would argue no. Such a change, like the botched half-changes in the Lords, would simply be for change's sake. The Lords, now packed with cronies, is a less effective and less democratic place than ever before.
	Would powers be vested in such a new Prime Minister to veto legislation of which he did not approve, as can be done in France and the United States—two examples given by the hon. Gentleman? The Prime Minister, under this scheme, would have an authority all his own. Where would that sit with the primacy of Parliament? What if a charismatic Prime Minister were elected from a party different from the majority party in Parliament?
	Could cohabitation, as the French call it, work here? The Assemble Nationale in Paris has no powers except those that the President is pleased to grant it. The President of the United States enjoys powers of veto similar to those enjoyed by British monarchs until the mid-17th century, but there is a clear difference, which the hon. Gentleman ignored in his speech. Both the French and US Presidents are not only Heads of Government, but Heads of State. Our Head of State, however, is Her Majesty the Queen, and long may she continue to reign over us.
	The Bill would weaken parliamentary institutions already weakened by this Government as power continues to ebb towards Downing street. It would weaken the role of the monarch as the ultimate protector of our people. Worst of all, until recently it would have meant, if the polls are to be believed, that all that power would be vested in the present Prime Minister. How comfortable would the Labour party, let alone the rest of the nation, be with that? An elected Prime Minister would weaken democracy, not strengthen it. The proposal would weaken the Commons Chamber, not strengthen it. The beneficiaries will be not our people and their legislature, but the Executive in Whitehall and its chief executive and Head of State, the newly elected Prime Minister—our own President Blair. Just think, it might even have been President Alastair Campbell. Either way, I oppose the motion.
	Question put and negatived.

Housing Bill (Programme) (No. 2)

Keith Hill: I beg to move,
	That the programme order of 12th January 2004 in relation to the Housing Bill be varied as follows—
	1.   Paragraphs 4 and 5 of the order shall be omitted.
	2.   Proceedings on consideration shall be taken in the order shown in the first column of the following Table. In that column, any reference to new Clauses, Amendments or new Shedules relating to any of Parts 1 to 7 does not include new Clauses, Amendments or new Schedules relating to overcrowding or the definition of 'house in multiple occupation'.
	3.   The proceedings shown in the first column of the Table shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the time specified in the second column.
	
		TABLE
		
			  
			 Proceedings Time for conclusion of proceedings 
			 New Clauses, Amendments and new Schedules relating to Part 1 One and a quarter hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion for this order. 
			 New Clauses, Amendments and new Schedules relating to Part 2; new Clauses, Amendments and new Schedules relating to the definition of 'house in multiple occupation'; new Clauses, Amendments and new Schedules relating to Part 3; new Clauses, Amendments and new Schedules relating to Part 4 Two and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion for this order. 
			 New Clauses, Amendments and new Schedules relating to Part 5 Three and three quarter hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion for this order. 
			 New Clauses, Amendments and new Schedules relating to Part 6; new Clauses, Amendments and new Schedules relating to overcrowding; new Clauses, Amendments and new Schedules relating to Part 7 and any remaining proceedings on the Bill Five and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion for this order. 
		
	
	4.   Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion six and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion for this order.
	We have important issues to consider today and I look forward to debating them. I therefore intend to be brief in speaking to the programme motion.
	The Housing Bill will help to create a fairer and better housing market and it will protect the most vulnerable. It will fulfil two manifesto commitments, and will introduce many of the legislative measures necessary to help to create sustainable communities, as announced by my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister in February last year. The Under-Secretary of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), and I are genuinely grateful to all members of Standing Committee E for the full and positive contributions that they made in the substantial amount of time allowed to consider the Bill. We had full debates on all the substantive issues and, in my view, their contributions and amendments have improved the Bill.
	We have a number of amendments to consider today. My hon. Friend the Member for Castleford and Pontefract and I committed ourselves to revisit a range of issues, and I am delighted that we have been able to do so. I am sure that members of Standing Committee E will welcome the Government amendments, the vast majority of which respond to concerns raised in their debates. The Government have tabled a programme motion that allocates time for consideration of each part of the Bill. The proposed order of consideration broadly follows the order of clauses in the Bill, but there are some exceptions. We propose that schedules are considered alongside the clause that first introduces them, as their provisions relate to that particular clause and it seems appropriate to consider them together. It also seems logical to discuss new clauses relating to each part alongside amendments to that part. Part 2 deals with the licensing of houses in multiple occupation, so it seems sensible to consider amendments relating to the definition of HMOs when we consider that part. Government and non-Government amendments on overcrowding will be considered when we discuss part 6.

Robert Syms: This is a long and complex Bill. In fact, it could easily have been four or five separate Bills, and throughout our deliberations it has been subject to major Government amendment and change. Even on Report, many Government amendments have been tabled. Given the grouping of amendments and the knives, it is unlikely that the programme motion will allow us to do justice to all the important matters that need to be discussed as part of the public debate, so we shall oppose the motion. I do not intend to detain the House as we want to get on with business. However, the Government are again forcing a diktat on the House and we wish to make it clear that we oppose their manner of conducting business in the Chamber.

Matthew Green: I accept that the Government have discussed with Opposition parties the order of consideration and where the knives will fall. There has been agreement about that, but there is clearly not agreement about the amount of time allowed for debate. Two days were allowed for the Report stage and Third Reading of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill. Three days have been allocated next week to consideration of the Pensions Bill, although that may be because the Government have not finished writing it. There is clearly a case for allowing more time to consider the Housing Bill. There is a great deal of interest from Labour Back Benchers, who have tabled a number of amendments and new clauses, but we are unlikely to reach all of them. The Government have not only sold the Bill short by failing to allow for proper discussion of amendments and new clauses, but have sold their own Back Benchers short. Labour Members want to discuss tenancy deposit schemes, compulsory leasing and so on, but will struggle to do so given the time allowed for debate.
	We cannot support the motion because it allows insufficient time to discuss the Bill. Whatever good will Ministers have shown about dividing up the available time, regrettably they do not have the clout to win sufficient time from the business managers, so we shall vote against the motion.

Eric Forth: I wish to place on the record the fact that, yet again, the Government are giving the House pathetically inadequate time to deal with a Bill which, by any measure, is important. A mere glance at the Speaker's provisional list of amendments and the Government's suggested allocation of time reveals the shocking truth. One and a quarter hours, for example, has been allowed for amendments on housing conditions. A debate in the Chamber should provide Members of Parliament with an opportunity to express a view about an issue or set of issues. The first group of amendments on housing conditions—there can be few issues more important to our constituents—is a large one, yet the Government have insulted the House by offering 659 Members of Parliament one and a quarter hours to debate it. That is the extent of the Government's impertinence.
	The situation is even worse when we reach the second group of amendments, on houses in multiple occupation, for which another hour and a quarter has been allowed. The group includes a large number of Government amendments and new clauses, and subsumed within it is a separate group of amendments on interim and final management orders. Limited time has been offered to all Members of Parliament, including Ministers and Opposition spokesmen. Home information packs are a controversial part of the Bill but, again, a mere hour and a quarter has been allowed for discussion of amendments, including many Government amendments.

Patrick McLoughlin: Is my right hon. Friend not being a little too generous to the Government? If we wish to have a Division, the time taken is subtracted from debating time. That is one way in which the Government put pressure on Labour Members who feel strongly about an issue not to have a vote.

Eric Forth: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, because there is a danger that these things are becoming accepted as the way in which the House of Commons works. We are now operating under completely artificial constraints. There is no reason why our debate should take six and a half hours—we could take as long as we wanted. In fact, as you know, Mr. Speaker, there is provision for a business motion to be moved to allow us to continue our deliberations after 7 pm, and there is open-ended business following proceedings on the Bill. Bizarrely, unlimited time has been allowed for the subsequent debate on a House of Commons matter which, Mr. Speaker, is dear to your heart. The Order Paper states, I am happy to say, "Until any hour", yet on such a vital Bill, with dozens of Government amendments and dealing with crucial matters that affect our constituents' everyday lives, the Government have the impudence to say, "You, the House of Commons, will have only six and a half hours to consider all these matters." That is an outrage, but it is in danger of passing into our proceedings as though it were perfectly normal. Members of Parliament are expected to accept it, take it in their stride, shrug and say, "Obviously, I can't participate because there is so little time."
	Any examination of the time proposed in the motion would show that it is an insult to the House of Commons and to the parliamentary process. For the Minister, in his insouciant way, to sit there and say, "Take it or leave it. This is it. This is all the Government believe the House of Commons should have", illustrates how far the House of Commons has fallen. It pains me to say so, but that, sadly, is the truth. Here we are, reduced to an hour and a quarter—the total time allocated to all Members of Parliament to debate a subject as important as, for example, home information packs.

Oliver Heald: Does my right hon. Friend agree that even to call this a programme is an insult? Programmes are supposed to be consensual; this is a guillotine.

Eric Forth: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. That is true. I may have slipped into conceding that this is a so-called programme. My hon. Friend is right: they are systematic guillotines of all business. Today's motion is a prime example of what we have to put up with. It is increasingly difficult for us to look our voters in the face and claim that we are even beginning to do our job, as their representatives, in scrutinising legislation. In no way can these time limits allow us properly to scrutinise; in no way can proper speeches be made by Members of Parliament—points of criticism or points of elucidation. The Government do not allow us to do that any more.

David Wilshire: My right hon. Friend is probably far too modest to say that such a motion is an attempt to gag him. The time being taken now—this is a criticism not of him, but of the Government—comes out of the time that the Government generously say we can have to debate other matters. That is another scandal.

Eric Forth: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Many people try to gag me in many different ways, but my hon. Friend knows me well enough to know that that is usually not very successful. I shall be demonstrating that later today in the business that will come on, courtesy of the Government, well after 7 o'clock and may continue for some time thereafter. So gagging me is usually a fairly futile exercise, although it is tried from time to time, as my hon. Friend points out.
	All in all, the motion is an egregious example of so-called programming, which is in fact systematic vicious guillotining of business in the House in order that the Government can get their business with a minimum of debate. I am glad we are opposing it.

Bob Spink: The programme motion—or guillotine, as it is better called—is yet another example of the Government trying to remove from the House powers to hold them to account. I shall address the paltry one and a quarter hours that has been allocated to home improvement packs, which is a detailed, complex matter on which many Government amendments have been tabled. It is a matter that is crucial to consumers, to the housing market and the operation of that market, and to the industry—estate agents and solicitors. The House must get such a crucial matter right, and in one and a quarter hours there is not enough time properly to debate all the detailed amendments that have been tabled to that part of the Bill.
	Within the total time, the Bill is supposed to get its Third Reading. It is outrageous and a removal of the powers of the House properly to hold the Government to account.

Question put:—
	The House divided: Ayes 246, Noes 146.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Ann McKechin: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I have just received information that an explosion has occurred at the ICL Plastics factory in my constituency. I understand that the building has collapsed, and reports mention more than 60 casualties, with many people still lying in the rubble. May I ask, through your good offices, if the appropriate Department will investigate at the earliest opportunity, and if a Minister will come to this House to make a statement as soon as more information is known?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Lady is a constituency neighbour of mine, and I know the Maryhill district very well indeed. I will ensure that the appropriate Ministers go about the business of gathering whatever information it is possible to obtain. I am sure that the fire service and the police will do their best, and I thank the hon. Lady for bringing the matter to the House.

Patrick McLoughlin: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The House has just passed a timetable motion, and after the five and a half hours of debate you, or whoever is in the Chair, is likely to say, "Consideration concluded. Third Reading, what day?" May I put it to you, Mr. Speaker, that that is to mislead the House, and that it would be more suitable to say that the Government's timetable means that no further discussion can take place? Rather than misleading the House by saying, "Consideration concluded," perhaps a new form of words should be found.

Mr. Speaker: I assure the hon. Gentleman that the Chair would never mislead the House.

Housing Bill

As amended in Standing Committee, considered.
	[Relevant documents: The Eighth Report (HC 427) and the Tenth Report (HC 503) of Session 2003–04 from the Joint Committee on Human Rights, on the Committee's continuing scrutiny of Bills. The Tenth Report from the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister: Housing, Planning, Local Government and the Regions Committee, Session 2002–03, HC 751-I, on the Draft Housing Bill, and the Government's response thereto, Cm 6000; and the Fifth Report from the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister: Housing, Planning, Local Government and the Regions Committee, Session 2003–04, HC 46-I, on Decent Homes.]

Clause 2
	 — 
	Meaning of "category 1 hazard" and "category 2 hazard"

Edward Davey: I beg to move amendment No. 100, in clause 2, page 3, leave out lines 10 to 19 and insert—
	'(1)   Meanings of "category 1 hazard" and "category 2 hazard" shall be prescribed for the purposes of this Act.
	(2)   Those meanings shall be so prescribed by reference to—
	(a)   hazards of prescribed descriptions, and
	(b)   a ranking system for the severity of such hazards by which the question of whether a hazard achieves a particular ranking is decided by reference to—
	(i)   the results of a qualitative assessment of the hazard in question, and
	(ii)   an assessment of whether those results meet prescribed qualitative criteria.'.

Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 102, in page 3, line 20, after 'risk,' insert '(a)'.
	No. 103, in page 3, line 21, after 'HMO', insert—
	'(b)   that the dwelling or HMO is or is likely to be below a reasonable standard, having regard to its age, character or locality, or
	(c)   that the condition of the dwelling or HMO is or is likely to be such as to interfere materially with the personal comfort of the occupying tenant, and'.
	No. 101, in page 3, line 27, leave out from '218(1)' to end of line 29.
	Government amendments Nos. 6 to 13.
	No. 134, in clause 8, page 7, line 11, at end insert—
	'(e)   the functions and requirements in respect of new qualifications and training required by environmental health officers.
	(f)   the functions and requirements in respect of the nature and time expenditure required so that these tasks can be considered to have been properly fulfilled.
	(g)   the functions and requirements in respect of the circumstances in which they may be required to compensate landlords for costs incurred in the carrying out of their duties'.
	(h)   their functions and requirements in relation to fire safety legislation and in particular consideration be given to the installation of automatic fire sprinklers in HMOs.'.
	No. 104, in clause 44, page 28, line 34, at end insert—
	'(2A)   In the event of such an appeal being made, the notice under section 40 is not suspended.'.
	Government amendment No. 29.
	No. 119, in schedule 13, page 231, line 31, after '189' insert—
	   'Sections 190A'.

Edward Davey: I begin by expressing our concern for the constituents of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Ann McKechin), and I hope that Ministers follow up your words, Mr. Speaker. Let us hope that what sounds like a tragedy does not result in any fatalities.
	This group of amendments deals with housing conditions. Part 1 of the Bill significantly changes the way in which housing conditions are considered by environmental health officers, particularly, but not exclusively, in the private rented sector. The new system that the Government are introducing—the housing health and safety rating system—is broadly supported across the House. However, we raised several points in Committee that we want to address again in slightly different ways to ensure that we are clear about the Government's intentions and to see whether we can push them a little further in a few respects.
	Amendments Nos. 100, 102, 103 and 101 reflect a concern that I expressed in Committee—namely, that the Bill introduces too mechanistic an approach whereby environmental health officers will have to try to calculate a numerical assessment of the state of the home concerned, using a complicated system to add up the probabilities and risks that particular conditions may harm certain types of people in order to produce ratings that define the problem as a category 1 hazard or a category 2 hazard. That system is based on a quantitative approach, but in our discussions in Committee, the Minister took a more expansive approach that possibly reflected the tone of the guidance that we saw only just before we debated it in Committee. He went so far as to tell the Committee that environmental health officers will be expected to use their professional judgment and that the approach will be qualitative, as well as quantitative.
	Although we do not seek to press our amendments to a Division, I hope that for the sake of clarification the Minister can put on the record again some of the comments that he made in Committee. For example, he said:
	"Let me say a little more about judgment reports and flexibility. I should like to emphasise that the environmental health officer's assessment of the property, which will generate a score, will be based on their professional judgment of the condition."—[Official Report, Standing Committee E, 20 January 2004; c. 48.]
	He made other remarks along those lines to suggest that despite what it says in the Bill, a degree of flexibility and professional judgment will be involved. Can he give such an undertaking to members of the Chartered Institute of Environmental Health, who will have to try to make the new system work? That would be helpful, because when environmental health officers tested version one of the system, they encountered many problems in trying to use that mechanistic approach.
	It is worth commenting on Government amendment No. 6, which changes the requirement in the Bill for a local authority to consider the housing conditions in its district at least once a year. When we debated that duty in Committee, we thought it rather onerous and proposed amendments. At the time, the Government were not convinced, but they have returned with this amendment to allow greater flexibility by removing the frequency requirement to leave a general duty. I welcome that deregulatory measure.
	Amendment No. 104 would ensure that there is a procedure to allow environmental health officers to go into a property very quickly if a hazard exists with the potential to cause an emergency. As the Bill stands, if an environmental health officer serves a notice on a landlord to say that there is an emergency that requires urgent investigation, the landlord can appeal. I understand that an appeals procedure is necessary, but some in the profession are worried that if a genuine emergency arose, the appeals procedure could get in the way of its being tackled. The amendment would ensure that the emergency can be dealt with even while the appeals procedure is going on. That might sound odd, but we are talking about situations that could threaten the lives of occupants, neighbours and even passers-by. Perhaps we misunderstood the various amendments that were discussed in Committee, but we certainly did not debate this point. Will the Minister confirm that if a real threat arises, the appeals procedure will not get in the way of its being dealt with?
	Amendment No. 119 would reverse the Bill's repeal of section 190 of the Housing Act 1985. We are not convinced by that change, which was not debated in Committee. I remind hon. Members that section 190 enables a local housing authority to serve a repair notice on the landlord where the house is
	"in such a state of disrepair that, although not unfit for human habitation, substantial repairs are necessary to bring it up to a reasonable standard",
	or
	"its condition is such as to interfere materially with the personal comfort of the occupying tenant."
	The Government want to repeal that right because they believe that other measures introduced in the Bill make it superfluous. However, the professionals feel that although the Government have provided some new powers to deal with disrepair, they do not measure up to the section 190 powers. They are worried that in trying to raise the standard of conditions of housing, the Government are shooting themselves in the foot by getting rid of a piece of legislation that was helpful and putting in place measures that are not as effective. Environmental health officers and groups such as Shelter have told me that section 190 should be retained, arguing that although the new rating system is good for dealing with current threats to the health and safety of occupants, it is not so good for dealing with future threats.
	There is some fuzziness around the edges, but the basic point is that the Government's proposed system deals with current threats, but not future threats such as rotting window frames or damaged guttering, which do not cause a problem immediately but will do so in the foreseeable future. People are worried that the new system, unlike section 190, will not cover disrepair that causes inconvenience or misery to residents—for example, ill-fitting windows or poor lighting—and fear that we may end up with a worse regime for dealing with housing conditions than the present one.
	It is worth the Government reflecting on that. I doubt whether they will accept the amendment—that would be a turn-up for the books—but they might at least take time to reconsider my arguments when the Bill moves to another place and perhaps decide that section 190 of the 1985 Act is worth retaining.

Joan Walley: I wish briefly to endorse some of the comments made by the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey). I should say from the outset that I speak as vice-president of the Institute of Environmental Health Officers.
	I have corresponded with the Minister on some of these issues, and he was kind enough to respond to me in a very lengthy letter dated 5 March. I want to take this opportunity to flag up the day-to-day work of environmental health officers on housing repair and the huge responsibility that they take and put into action on a daily basis. They want to ensure that any new legislation that reaches the statute book does not put us in a worse position than that which obtains under existing statutes. I would hate us to make a decision today that would take us back a step rather than taking us further forward.
	The Minister has been very courteous already, but I must tell him that the Chartered Institute of Environmental Health still has certain concerns. Bearing in mind the fact that these issues are not to be pressed to a vote, will he agree to continue the dialogue that he has been having with the institute? Perhaps, between now and the time when the Bill goes to the other place, he will be kind enough to have further talks with the institute to ensure that the changes that we are proposing will enable the proper repairs to be carried out to the nation's housing stock.

Robert Syms: For the purpose of the debate, I should like to declare that, as shown in the Register of Members' Interests, I am a director of a family property company with building interests.
	This part of the Bill is highly complex, and I must admit that, even having had a briefing from the civil servants in the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister and having sat through the Committee stage of the Bill, I still do not feel wholly confident to lecture or give advice on it. We have given our broad support to the housing health and safety rating system, but with 29 categories of housing hazard and a numeric way of assessing them, it will be complex to administer.
	An issue that arose in Committee, and to which we return in amendment No. 134, is the uniformity of the application of this part of the Bill. The amendment proposes that the appropriate national authority—be it the United Kingdom Government or the Welsh Assembly—should set out clearly what is expected of the respective institutions in regard to the qualifications and training of environmental health officers and the functions and requirements relating to the operation of this part of the Bill.
	Another theme that we have identified is that, if it is clear from the Bill, through guidance, what is required, it will be much easier to ascertain the cost of providing those services. We raised the issue of cost on a number of occasions in Committee, and the Minister replied that the Government expected the one-off set-up costs of training environmental health officers and of information technology to be in the order of £4 million to £5 million. Perhaps that might be a recurring cost each year. I come from a local authority background, and I am still a little suspicious, given the complexities of this system and its implementation across the country, as to whether such an amount would fully cover the costs involved.
	We are not going to press our amendment to a vote, mainly because, given the programme motion that the House has passed, we might want to discuss other, weightier issues later. I would like the Minister to reassure the House, however, about how even-handedly this part of the Bill will be applied. We believe that it is important to include guidance in the Bill. Perhaps he will also briefly revisit the topic of the cost of the system. Every time the House passes legislation that places a duty on local authorities, or changes the manner in which they carry out their services, it is important that we should fully compensate them for that, particularly in this age when we often throw allegations across the Chamber at Office of the Deputy Prime Minister's Question Time about who has the worst record on council tax, for example. One of the major engines for generating higher costs for local authorities is legislation that puts too much of a burden on those authorities, which is not fully reflected when the revenue support grant is produced.
	We have more important matters to discuss later, so I shall end my remarks now, to give the Minister an opportunity to give the House further reassurances on this important part of the Bill.

Sydney Chapman: I am grateful to have been called to speak and I shall be very brief. I want to pick up the point made by the hon. Members for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) and for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms Walley). The hon. Gentleman mentioned an occasion on which a person from a local authority might have to enter premises in an emergency. It would be quite wrong in those circumstances to require prior notice, and I believe that that also applies to a landlord. It would be wrong of us to think that there is permanent conflict between tenants and landlords. I hope that, in the main, a very harmonious relationship exists between them.
	My other point is on the application of this part of the Bill. Of course we must get rid of unfit homes, and of course we must bring homes of a poor standard up to the standard that we expect to find at the beginning of the 21st century, but let us remember the context in which we are doing so. In recent years, the amount of public money invested in housing has been dramatically cut, although I am delighted to say that the Chancellor has recently announced that he is increasing the provision from £4 billion to £5 billion. However, the amount going into housing in 1990 was £11 billion, according to the Joseph Rowntree Foundation. It is vital, particularly in a place such as London, that we do not suddenly cut off a vast proportion of the private rented properties. All local authorities must employ an even-handed touch in giving time for conditions that are not necessarily or immediately hazardous to be improved. I support this part of the Bill in general, but it is the application of it that will be the decisive matter in practice.

Keith Hill: Before I respond to the debate, may I take this opportunity to express the Government's great sympathy and concern in regard to the explosion in Glasgow, which was brought to the attention of the House by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Ann McKechin)?
	The House will understand that I want not only to deal with the issues that have been raised in the non-Government amendments, but to explain and commend the Government amendments to the House. Clause 2 of the Bill provides for the components of the new hazard assessment system—the housing health and safety rating system to be prescribed in regulations. These are: the method for calculating the seriousness of hazards; the descriptions of hazards; the bands into which the hazards may fall, according to their seriousness; and the numerical scores that determine the bands into which the hazards fall.
	Subsection (1) defines "hazard" for the purposes of part 1 of the Bill as a
	"risk of harm to the health or safety of an actual or potential occupier of a dwelling HMO"—
	a house in multiple occupation—
	"which arises from a deficiency"
	on the premises or on
	"any building or land in the vicinity".
	It also defines category 1 and category 2 hazards.
	Under the rating system, the assessment of a hazard has two elements: the likelihood of an occurrence resulting in harm, and the potential outcome of that occurrence. By virtue of subsection (3), the regulations prescribing the method will take account both of the likelihood of harm occurring and of the severity of the harm if it occurs. Whether a hazard is in category 1 or 2, and whether, within those categories, the hazard falls into band A, B, C, D or E is a matter for the judgment of the inspector. I use that expression advisedly, and I hope that in doing so I can provide the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) with the reassurance that he seeks. I must underline that point.
	Regulations will describe the method for assessing hazards, set out the principles for scoring the hazards and placing them in bands, and list the 29 hazards to be covered by the system. Guidance to be given under clause 8 will give advice on how local authority officers should operate the system using their judgment, what they should look out for, and what can be done on the premises to remove or reduce a hazard.
	Amendments Nos. 100 to 103 seek to make technical changes to the meaning of "hazards". In our view, they undermine the objectivity of the system, which is its prime objective. I also believe that they stem from a belief that the system is in danger of being excessively mechanistic and leaves no room for judgment—that is, that the rating system deals with numbers at the expense of the inspector's professional judgment and knowledge. The system does use numbers, of course, but the hazard score will not be determined by the system. I say again that it will be determined by the inspector's judgment, and I pay tribute to the professionalism of the officers of the Chartered Institute of Environmental Health.
	Amendment No. 103 would introduce the concept of relative standards to a system of risk assessment by requiring the "age, character or locality" of a property to be taken into account. That creates something of a slippery slope. I do not argue that the rating system seeks perfection in every dwelling. Some sorts of dwelling have characteristic defects. For example, early 20th century terraced houses may have steep staircases that increase the risk of a fall. A local authority inspector will know that and make appropriate allowance for it. On the other hand, it will not be good enough for him to say that, because many dwellings in his area have leaking roofs, he should play down the seriousness of that defect in a particular dwelling.
	The housing health and safety rating system is a tool that provides objective information as a starting point for an inspector to support his judgment of the action needed to deal with a hazard. That judgment should take on board the effect of housing conditions on the health and safety of occupants.
	Amendment No. 103 would also introduce considerations of material comfort into a system that assesses the health and safety risks to occupants. I am sure that that is a reflection of representations that have been made to me about the repeal of section 190 of the Housing Act 1985. Aside from any merits of having a separate power to deal with minor disrepair and discomfort, it is inappropriate to introduce it in the housing health and safety rating system formula.
	The housing health and safety rating system will pick up disrepair when it contributes to any hazard in category 1 or 2. I understand that authorities would like to have wider powers to deal with conditions that are not even hazards. The housing heath and safety rating system provides a tool for authorities to prioritise intervention, and they can choose to tackle disrepair that contributes to modest hazards, should that be their approach.
	When disrepair does not even contribute to a hazard, we should hesitate to provide open-ended powers. Enforcement action needs to be proportionate and evidence based. There is no reason why authorities cannot provide advice to landlords when they judge that defects might lead to discomfort or further deterioration in the future and monitor those conditions. I therefore invite the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton to withdraw the amendment, but I hope that my remarks have reassured him.
	I shall now deal with Government amendments Nos. 6 to 13, which, I am delighted to say, largely respond to representations that were made in Committee. Clause 3 requires local authorities to consider the housing conditions in their district at least once a year, with a view to determining what action to take, for example, under their powers to deal with hazards identified under the housing health and safety rating system, or their powers to declare renewal areas or provide financial assistance for home repair or improvement.
	In Committee, I was pressed on the frequency of such consideration by local authorities, and hon. Members presented arguments for both more and less frequent consideration. I undertook to reconsider the requirement. Clause 3 replicates provisions that were enacted most recently in the Local Government and Housing Act 1989. However, the Government's approach to local housing strategies has developed since then, and authorities are no longer expected to produce them annually. The requirement in clause 3 to keep the housing stock under review remains important, but the obligation to do so annually is out of kilter with the approach to strategies.
	Amendment No. 6 therefore retains the obligation to keep the stock under review, but removes the requirement about frequency. The purpose of the clause is to ensure that a local authority maintains a current awareness of the state of the housing stock in its area so that it can reach well-informed judgments about the action that it needs to take. As I said in Committee, the purpose of the provision is not to require an authority to produce reports at specific intervals, although we expect authorities to keep records that can be made available to the appropriate national authority. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton for his welcome for the clause.
	Clause 4 deals with the requirements on local authorities to inspect premises to determine whether they contain hazards. It also deals with the requirements on authorities and their officers to respond to complaints about housing conditions. In Committee, the handling of complaints received what I described at the time as "a good thrashing", and I have concluded that the extended discussion that took place was due, at least in part, to a lack of clarity in the way in which clause 4 deals with the issue. The amendments are intended to set out more clearly the way in which the Government expect complaints to be tackled and to draw a sharper distinction between official and other complaints.
	Amendments Nos. 7 and 8 remove subsection (3) and establish a general duty on local authorities to arrange for an inspection of premises to be carried out. That duty arises if the authority considers that an inspection would be appropriate, either as a result of a review under clause 3 or for any other reason, to determine whether a category 1 or 2 hazard exists on those premises. The amendment therefore provides for the kinds of circumstances that, in the normal course of business, are most likely to lead an authority to inspect a property and consider enforcement action under part 1. They include ordinary, day-to-day complaints to the authority.
	There is no duty on authorities to respond to every such complaint but, as I said in Committee, we expect them to respond to complaints that are not vexatious or frivolous. Amendment No. 7 therefore sets out what I might describe as the "default" approach to complaints.
	Let me deal with what clause 4 calls "official" complaints. They have a dual significance in that they carry the weight of a justice of the peace or a parish or community council and are made to the proper officer rather than to the authority. The proper officer, who, in this context, is likely to be a senior environmental health officer, has duties independent of the authority's, including a duty to inspect premises in response to an official complaint. That lends those complaints—in both the giving and the receiving—an additional significance. It enables them to be considered without any suggestion that political or financial considerations may have been brought to bear.
	Much of the debate in Committee focused on the official complaints and on amendments that would have extended the power to make such a complaint to other institutions. However, I stress again that the official complaints are the exception rather than the rule. Indeed, I have to confess to the House that a recent trawl by the Chartered Institute of Environmental Health has not identified a single authority that can recall the use of the official route for complaints.
	That is not to say that the official route has no value.

Edward Davey: rose—

Keith Hill: If I may be allowed to make my argument and the hon. Gentleman still wants to intervene, I would welcome his remarks.
	The findings illustrate, as I maintained in Committee, that the ordinary workaday route for tenants and residents to complain directly to their local authority works well in the vast majority of cases and there is no need to widen the official route.

Edward Davey: The Minister is making an interesting speech, which would have enlightened our previous "thrashing" debate. However, perhaps the current formal route is not sufficiently wide and the findings that he has secured back the case that we made in Committee.

Keith Hill: In Committee, we were in a sort of competition to extend the category of those regarded as official complainants. However, the reality appears to be that the current system works well enough and we perceive the official route as a fall-back, default mechanism or recourse when other more obvious routes fail.

Andrew Bennett: Does my right hon. Friend accept that there has always been a tension between the public health and management sides of a council? Does he also accept that, especially when houses have been bought up because of, for example, road widening, the council tends, in its management of the road-widening scheme, to resist pressure from the public health side to make temporary improvements to those properties? There is now a danger that, if local authorities do not have the resources to put their council properties into a state of good repair, the housing authority could manage a house with, for example, poor electrical wiring and be embarrassed by the pressure from the public health side of the council. It is important that the Minister emphasises that the public health side should have priority.

Keith Hill: On the whole, I am inclined to agree with my hon. Friend and to emphasise that, of course, public health must have considerable priority. He perhaps takes us wider than the immediate issue, but I have listened to him very carefully and, as ever, I will bear his observations in mind as I pursue these matters.
	I took the point made by hon. Members in Committee that not all areas are blessed with a parish or community council, and I recognise that those councils do not have the same independence as justices of the peace, but I am not about to deprive those who have access to such a council of that second string to their bow, even though one is enough.
	Subsection (4), as amended by amendment No. 10, ensures that all inspections, whether by the authority in response to an ordinary complaint or by the proper officer in response to an official complaint, are carried out in accordance with regulations, including those under clause 2, which will prescribe the method of hazard assessment. That means that all inspections carried out in response to complaints, whether ordinary or "official", will be carried out with the same rigour.
	Amendment No. 13 further strengthens the procedure for official complaints by ensuring that it is properly rounded off with a report by the proper officer, whether the hazard revealed by the officer's inspection has turned out to be category 1 or 2. Amendments Nos. 9, 11 and 12 are technical and consequential.
	On amendment No. 134, let me begin by assuring the hon. Member for Poole (Mr. Syms) of the continuing even-handedness of the Government's approach in these matters. As I said in Committee, we anticipate the start-up costs of these arrangements to be about £4 million to £5 million.
	Members will be aware that in January we had a thorough debate in Committee on an amendment with the same purpose as amendment No. 134. Indeed, the Committee even divided on that amendment, so I acknowledge that certain members of the Committee were not entirely persuaded by my arguments. That said, my arguments against this amendment remain unchanged.
	Clause 8 enables the Secretary of State in relation to England, and the National Assembly for Wales in relation to Wales, to give guidance to local housing authorities on the exercise of their functions under part 1. That guidance will be about how properties are to be inspected and assessed using the housing health and safety rating system and how authorities, once they have assessed a hazard, should apply the enforcement duties and powers provided in part 1. Those relate to the use of improvement notices, prohibition orders, hazard awareness notices, demolition orders, and clearance, and also to the use of the emergency measures under the provisions added to the Bill by Government amendment in Committee.
	Amendment No. 134 would add to the topics on which guidance may be given. I must declare to the House that I remain entirely unconvinced that those additions are necessary. The amendment appears to question the fact that environmental health officers employed by local housing authorities are already qualified to operate the rating system.
	I recognise that the rating system requires a change of approach by local authorities—this is the first time that we have brought risk assessment and housing conditions together under a regime that has been around in some shape or form for the past 80 years—but the housing health and safety rating system is essentially a tool to assist professional judgment, as I have repeatedly said.
	Environmental health practitioners are already used to risk assessment methods in other areas of their work. I am comforted by the Chartered Institute of Environmental Health, which in its response to our recent consultation on the enforcement guidance gave an account of the work that practitioners do. The CIEH response points to environmental health practitioners'
	"experience in risk assessment procedures and ability to take an holistic view of the health, safety and welfare of occupiers alongside traditional building and means of escape defects."
	It seems to me, therefore, that the hon. Member for Poole takes a dimmer view of the experience and abilities of environmental health professionals than does the CIEH.
	The chartered institute is a key housing stakeholder and I do not underestimate the contribution that its members will make to the success of our reforms, but it is clear that we are not talking here about the need for new qualifications. Rather, I have said that we will do what we can to ensure that the rating system is implemented smoothly. There will be training in the system, and we are considering what training will be required, but in the meantime, there cannot be many EHOs or authorities who remain ignorant of the principles underlying the system, as version 1 entered the public domain in 2000 and a draft of version 2 has been available since last December.
	Proposed new subsection (1)(f), which amendment No. 134 would insert in clause 8, appears once again to be an attempt to write a regulatory impact assessment into the guidance. That is not the function of guidance on either a technical assessment or the use of the enforcement options. I have said before that inspections are likely to vary considerably in the time that they take, both in the field and back at base. The computer programme that will be part of version 2 of the housing health and safety rating system should enable inspectors to save time by entering data as they carry out the inspection.
	As to proposed new subsection (1)(g), which would be inserted by the amendment, it is not clear in what circumstances authorities may need to compensate landlords. Landlords will have a right to appeal on the improvement notices and prohibition orders for which the Bill provides before they take effect, or, in the case of the emergency measures, after the measures have been taken.
	Compensation may well be an outcome of an appeal in some such cases. I suggest that compensation is a matter that should be dealt with on appeal. I cannot agree that compensation should be a matter for Government guidance under clause 8, nor, as I said before, can I see that compensation is a likely outcome for a landlord who has kept his tenants in conditions so hazardous that a local authority has felt compelled to take enforcement action.
	I turn now to the question of fire, which of course is one of the 29 hazards dealt with by the rating system. There will indeed be guidance on hazards from fire, which will cover the causes and preventative measures. Fire is one of the most important hazards. Nevertheless, I do not think it necessary to single out fire safety in the Bill. All the hazards will be spelled out in the regulations, which prescribe the housing health and safety rating system method under clause 2.

John Hayes: I am trying to be helpful to the Minister, as he knows I generally am. As he is moving on to those matters, will he specifically deal with the report by the National Landlords Association, with which he will be intimately familiar? I see he is looking at it with knowledge and familiarity. The report makes this absolutely clear:
	"Just over 5 per cent. of England's population live in HMOs, which, statistics suggest, suffer just over 5 per cent. of England's fire fatalities."
	I do not necessarily make the argument for the association, but I know that he will want to deal with its argument in the fullest and most persuasive way.

Keith Hill: I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman for drawing the House's attention, if not mine, to the report in question. I give him the assurance that we shall deal with those issues of fire hazard in connection with HMOs in our debates this afternoon. Not for the first time, if I might say so in recognition of his skills and abilities, he anticipates weighty matters that will come before us in due course.
	Though we had a good debate on the issue in Committee, allow me to say again, with the leave of the House, something about how local authorities are being asked to deal with hazards. When inspecting a property, the inspector asks, "What is the likelihood of an incident taking place—for example, the risk of an outbreak of fire—and what harm will be caused, taking account of other factors such as the precautions that have been taken in the property and the means of escape?"
	We want local authorities to prioritise action against all serious hazards, and in the case of HMOs covered by part 2 they will be required to do so following an application for a licence. We will emphasise that in the guidance we issue to authorities. The guidance will also include advice on how housing authorities can work with fire authorities to ensure that both housing and fire safety legislation work effectively.
	The Bill now requires local authorities to consult fire authorities before taking enforcement action under part 1 in an HMO. That will ensure that expert advice is available to local authorities. When an authority has assessed a serious category 1 hazard, it will be under a duty, under clause 5, to take appropriate enforcement action. Should an improvement notice be served under clause 9, the action taken by the owner or landlord must, as a minimum, ensure that the hazard ceases to be a category 1 hazard. The authority will therefore need to ensure that any remedial action required in the case of fire is appropriate. It would be inconsistent with a system of risk assessment to prescribe specific means of dealing with hazards. However, the technical guidance to be issued under the clause will recommend that there should be adequate means of escape from fire from all parts of a building. For HMOs, there should be adequate fire protection, including, as appropriate, sprinkler systems. That does not mean that authorities will require such systems in all HMOS, but that it will be appropriate to fit them where the risk justifies it. In conclusion, our technical guidance will be already be comprehensive in its treatment of fire and other hazards, and the elements of the amendment are either misplaced or appropriate.
	In the time remaining for this group of amendments, let me turn to non-Government amendment No. 104, as I want to reassure the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton. This amendment seeks to ensure that when a local housing authority serves a notice of emergency remedial action under chapter 3 of part 1 of the Bill, in order to deal with a hazard that presents an imminent risk of serious harm to the occupiers of residential premises, the taking of the action is not affected by any appeal that may be made against the notice. I am happy to confirm that the amendment is unnecessary because such a notice will enable the authority to take action immediately.
	Clause 44 provides a right of appeal to the residential property tribunal against such a notice, but the appeal will not prevent the local housing authority from taking the action. When an appeal is made under clause 44, the tribunal may confirm, reverse or vary the decision of the authority, although this might be considered unacceptable if works have already been carried out. In such circumstances, schedule 10 allows the appropriate national authority, in regulations, to make provision for additional relief. These regulations might provide that when emergency remedial action has been taken and the tribunal determines that the local housing authority was wrong to decide that such action was necessary, the tribunal may require the authority to compensate the owner for any damage incurred or return the premises to the state that they were in before the works were carried out. I therefore invite the hon. Gentleman to withdraw his amendment. In passing, I commend Government amendment No. 29 to the House.
	Finally, let me turn to amendment No. 119, about which my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms Walley) spoke so eloquently. I assure her that I will continue to listen to the arguments, although she will understand that I can make no commitments. I recognise the reasons for this amendment. I am aware that there is some support among local authorities and housing professionals for retaining powers of some kind to deal with disrepair. Part 1 of the Bill, however, enables authorities to deal effectively with substantial disrepair. Using the housing health and safety rating system, they can apply the evidence of the effect of that disrepair on occupants—not merely on tenants in the private rented sector but on all occupants, should they be at any risk.
	Section 190 of the Housing Act 1985 currently gives discretion to local authorities to serve a repair notice when a dwelling, though not unfit, is in such a state of disrepair that substantial repairs are necessary to bring it up to a reasonable standard. Such a notice can also be served when the condition of the dwelling interferes materially with the personal comfort of an occupying tenant. I am sure that hon. Members will appreciate that, technically, this amendment will not work. By retaining section 190 as it stands, an authority will need to have regard to a standard of fitness, and we are of course repealing the fitness standard. In the spirit of generosity that has characterised our proceedings on the Bill, however, I am happy to address the underlying issue.
	We told the Select Committee on the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, whose distinguished Chairman is in his place, that we would consider its recommendation to retain an amended section 190. However, having considered this matter, I am not minded to support the retention of a power on the lines of section 190. There are sound reasons for that. Part 1 of the Bill will not prevent authorities from taking action against substantial disrepair. The hazards from structural failure, fire, cold, falls, asbestos and electrical faults, for example, set out in version 2 of the guidance, illustrate the kinds of disrepair that can give rise to such hazards, against which authorities will have either a duty or very wide discretionary power to take action.
	To give local authorities revised powers to deal with substantial disrepair would create a parallel regime. That is not good regulation, and if those parallel powers were to deal only with minor disrepair, they would undermine the rationale for the health and safety rating system: that interventions should be prioritised, proportionate and based on evidence.
	It being one and a quarter hours after the commencement of proceedings on the programme motion, Mr. Deputy Speaker put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair, pursuant to Order [this day].
	Amendment negatived.
	Mr. Deputy Speaker then proceeded to put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that hour.

Clause 3
	 — 
	Local housing authorities to review housing conditions in their districts

Amendment made: No. 6, in page 3, line 39, leave out subsection (1) and insert—
	'(1)   A local housing authority must keep the housing conditions in their area under review with a view to identifying any action that may need to be taken by them under any of the provisions mentioned in subsection (2).'.—[Keith Hill.]

Clause 4
	 — 
	Inspections by local housing authorities to see whether category 1 or 2 hazards exist

Amendments made: No. 7, in page 4, line 18, at beginning insert—
	'(1ZA)   If a local housing authority consider—
	(a)   as a result of any matters of which they have become aware in carrying out their duty under section 3, or
	(b)   for any other reason,
	that it would be appropriate for any residential premises in their district to be inspected with a view to determining whether any category 1 or 2 hazard exists on those premises, the authority must arrange for such an inspection to be carried out.'.
	No. 8, in page 4, line 28, leave out subsection (3).
	No. 9, in page 4, line 38, leave out '(1) or (3)' and insert '(1ZA) or (1)'.
	No. 10, in page 4, line 41, at end insert
	'or proper officer (as the case may be)'.
	No.11, in page 4, line 46, leave out '(1) or (3)' and insert '(1ZA) or (1)'.
	No. 12, in page 5, line 2, leave out 'or (3)'.
	No.13, in page 5, line 4, after '1', insert 'or 2'.—[Keith Hill.]

Schedule 3
	 — 
	Improvement Notices: Enforcement Action by Local Housing Authorities

Amendment made: No. 29, in page 177, line 35, at end insert
	', and a copy of the notice must be served on any other person who is an occupier of the premises.
	   (3A)   The notice and any such copy must be served sufficiently in advance of the time when the authority intend to enter the premises as to give the recipients reasonable notice of the intended entry.'.—[Keith Hill.]

Clause 54
	 — 
	Licensing of HMO to which this Part applies

John Hayes: I beg to move amendment No. 127, in page 36, line 9, leave out 'the following' and insert 'all'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Amendment No. 128, in page 36, line 9, leave out from 'HMOs' to end of line 19.
	Amendment No. 3, in page 36, line 10, at end insert—
	'(   )   any HMO in the authority's district of 3 storeys or above or in which at least 5 people live, and'.
	Amendment No. 87, in page 36, line 10, at end insert—
	'(   )   any HMO in the authority's district of 3 storeys or above or in which at least 4 people live, and'.
	Amendment No. 105, in page 36, line 37, leave out '5 years' and insert '12 months'.
	Amendment No. 129, in page 36, line 37, leave out '5' and insert '3'.
	Amendment No. 106, in page 36, line 38, at end insert—
	'(c)   a local authority may apply to the appropriate national authority for authority to extend the 12 month period in 54(6)(b) to a maximum of 5 years. The authority in making its application must satisfy the appropriate national authority that there are good reasons why it cannot reasonably comply with the requirements of 54(6)(b).'.
	Government amendments Nos. 31 and 32.
	Amendment No. 1, in clause 66, page 44, line 5, at end insert—
	'(c)   the energy efficiency of the house concerned.'.
	Amendment No. 107, in clause 66, page 44, line 10, leave out paragraph (b) and insert—
	'(b)   conditions requiring the written statement of terms in paragraph 1(5) of Schedule 4 to contain details of—
	(i)   the responsibilities of the occupier in respect of his own conduct;
	(ii)   the responsibilities of the occupier in respect of the conduct of other occupiers and visitors;
	(iii)   the ways in which the licence holder may address any nuisance or annoyance caused to others by persons occupying or visiting the house.'.
	Government amendment No. 33.
	Amendment No. 2, in clause 66, page 44, line 16, at end insert—
	'(da)   conditions requiring the installation of energy saving measures or efficient heating systems'.
	Amendment No. 108, in clause 72, page 49, line 16, at the end insert
	'and
	(c)   section 21 of the Housing Act 1988 (c. 50) shall not apply.'.
	Government amendments Nos. 34 and 14.
	Government new clause 6—HMO declarations.
	Government new clause 7—Revocation of HMO declarations.
	Government amendments Nos. 125 and 50 to 53.
	Amendment No. 122, in clause 214, page 157, line 44, at end insert
	'and
	(c)   a short-term stay hostel'.
	Amendment No. 123, in clause 214, page 158, line 8, at end insert—
	'(5A)   In subsection (4), "short-term stay hostel" means a building or part of a building which offers temporary accommodation and is occupied wholly or mainly by visitors from outside the United Kingdom (whether or not employed in the United Kingdom).'.
	Government amendments Nos. 126, 56 to 59, 65 and 66.
	Amendment No. 124, in schedule 11, page 218, line 1, leave out paragraph 5.
	Government amendments Nos. 67 to 69 and 35 to 37.
	Amendment No. 95, in clause 99, page 68, line 37, at end insert—
	'(2A)   A local housing authority must have regard to any breach of the duty owed to persons occupying the house under section [HMOs and duty of care].'.
	Government amendment No. 17.
	New clause 17—Housing ombudsman for students—
	'(1)   For the purpose of the investigation of complaints made about landlords by students, there shall be an office of Housing Ombudsman for Students.
	(2)   The Housing Ombudsman for Students will be appointed by the Secretary of State.
	(3)   An appropriate code of conduct for the Housing Ombudsman for Students will be established by regulations by the Secretary of State.
	(4)   The Secretary of State will, by regulation, make provision about the investigation by the Housing Ombudsman for Students of complaints made about landlords by students.
	(5)   Regulations under subsection (4) will make provision about—
	(a)   the matters about which complaints may be made;
	(b)   the grounds on which a matter will be excluded from investigation, including that the matter is the subject of court proceedings or was the subject of court proceedings where judgment on the merits was given;
	(c)   the description of individual who may make a complaint;
	(d)   a power of the Housing Ombudsman for Students to investigate any complaint made (whether the complaint is subsequently withdrawn or not), and, where he investigates, the making of a determination;
	(e)   a power of the Housing Ombudsman for Students to propose alternative methods of resolving a dispute;
	(f)   the powers of the Housing Ombudsman for Students for the purposes of his investigations (including powers to consult and co-operate with other persons), and the procedures to be followed in the conduct of investigations;
	(g)   the powers of the Housing Ombudsman for Students on making a determination, which may include power—
	(i)   to make recommendations as to action to be taken to remedy any injustice to the person aggrieved and to prevent any similar injustice being caused in the future,
	(ii)   to make orders with regard to the payment of compensation or to order that a person is not to exercise, or require the performance of, certain rights or obligations, and
	(iii)   to publish statements, or to make orders requiring the publication of statements, that a person has failed to comply with an order mentioned in sub-paragraph (ii);
	(h)   the manner in which determinations are to be—
	(i)   communicated to the complainant and the person against whom the complaint was made; and
	(ii)   published (with or without excisions).
	(6)   Regulations under this section may contain such supplementary, incidental, consequential or transitional provisions and savings as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.
	(7)   Regulations under this section may make different provision for different cases or descriptions of case.'.
	New clause 21—Warm homes—
	'(1)   The appropriate national authority shall issue guidance for the improvement of existing HMOs and the implementation in future housing stock (where possible) of—
	(a)   installation of products manufactured for cavity walls, loft or underfloor insulation, external and internal wall cladding and draft proofing
	(b)   Greater control of domestic heating systems, low emissivity glazing and efficient fitting of pipes and plumbing.
	(2)   The local housing authority should seek to act in accordance with subsection 1 and with the Sustainable Energy Act 2003.'.
	New clause 25—Landlord associations and codes of practice—
	'(1)   The Secretary of State may ask one or more bodies representing landlords to draw up a code of practice for his consideration under section 193;
	(2)   Before exercising his power under subsection (1), the Secretary of State must determine that any such body is itself fit and proper, and is capable and competent to represent the landlords who are its members;
	(3)   In reaching his determination in subsection (2), the Secretary of State should give particular regard to any training, professional development or accreditation schemes operated by that body for its members.'.
	New clause 28—HMOs and duty of care—
	'(1)   A person having control of or managing a HMO owes to all persons occupying the house a duty to take such care as is reasonable in all the circumstances to see that they are reasonably safe from personal injury or from damage to their property.
	(2)   A person having control of or managing a HMO who is in breach of the duty of care in subsection (1) commits an offence.
	(3)   A person who commits an offence under subsection (2) is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale.
	(4)   A local housing authority must have regard to any breach of the duty in subsection (1) when considering the health and safety condition under section 99.
	(5)   In this section—
	   "HMO" means a house in multiple occupation as defined by sections 213 to 217, save that the provisions of Schedule 11 do not apply to this section, and references to an HMO include (where the context permits) any yard, garden, outhouses and appurtenances belonging to, or usually enjoyed with, it (or any part of it).'.
	Amendment No. 120, in clause 194, page 146, line 38, at end insert—
	'(3A)   The regulations may empower local authorities to require, by notice, owners of houses in multiple occupation to carry out such works or actions as may be necessary to put in place, or observe, satisfactory standards of management.'.
	Amendment No. 121, in clause 209, page 155, line 22, leave out from 'section' to end of line and insert
	'sections 213(3), 142, 143, 144, 150 or Schedule 4'.
	Government amendment No. 21.
	Amendment No. 96, in schedule 11, page 217, line 8, after 'Part 1', insert—
	   'or section [HMOs and duty of care]'.
	Amendment No. 97, in schedule 11, page 217, line 9, after 'Part 1', insert—
	   'or section [HMOs and duty of care]'.
	Amendment No. 98, in schedule 11, page 217, line 11, after 'Part 1', insert—
	   'or section [HMOs and duty of care]'.

John Hayes: I hope that I can follow your laudable example, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and be pertinent and pithy, thus allowing the maximum time for exploration of the detailed matters involved in this and later parts of the Bill.
	I want to discuss not just amendments Nos. 127 to 129, tabled by me and my hon. Friends, but to spend a good deal of time—with your permission, Mr. Deputy Speaker—on other amendments and new clauses in this group. They concern such important matters as warm homes and the appointment of a housing ombudsman for students, which Conservative Members have championed in Committee and on other occasions.
	The first few amendments are designed to clarify whether the Government will seek to bring more HMOs within the licensing framework. A number of people are concerned about the balance of the Bill. We must be ever mindful of the balance between regulation and the proper protection of vulnerable citizens in particular. We have argued throughout the proceedings so far that that balance must be struck in a way that does not act as a disincentive to those who provide much-needed accommodation for rent. Issues such as cost, burden and the difficulty of staying within the law are considerable disincentives to marginal landlords—people who might stop letting their properties just as easily as they might start letting them.

Matthew Green: The hon. Gentleman is on to a good point in relation to concerns about regulation. I am therefore bemused by his first two amendments, which would appear to include all HMOs in the regulations, rather than restricting them, which I thought was the thrust of his argument. I am therefore confused, right from the start.

John Hayes: The hon. Gentleman is often confused, but not always. I concede that I should perhaps have said at the beginning that the first two amendments were probing amendments, but I did say that they were designed to clarify whether the Government would seek to bring more HMOs within the licensing framework, as he will see from the record. Conservative Members are highly sensitive to that question. We are mindful of the balance that I was beginning to describe, and which was acknowledged by the hon. Gentleman, between regulation and protection; and we are anxious, on behalf of landlords and others, about the risk of seriously deterring landlords from investing in this sub-sector of the rented sector.

Sydney Chapman: We should be particularly sensitive at a time when public housing, or housing in the social sector, has declined, and when the number of new homes has declined. We must be careful not to discourage private landlords from supplying much-needed housing, particularly in places such as Greater London, unless there are very good reasons for closing properties because they constitute a hazard.

John Hayes: My hon. Friend, who is an expert on these matters, properly draws attention to a particular failing on the Minister's part. I do not want to embarrass the Minister more than is necessary, but we are among friends here, are we not? I think that the Minister would want me to remind him of his failure in respect of social house building. He has let down the country, himself and the Government. He has many qualities and strengths, which will doubtless be on show today, but the 50 per cent. reduction in social house construction under this Labour Administration further emphasises the need to fill the gap with other suitable properties. If that is not done, many vulnerable people will not be able to obtain the houses that they need so desperately for themselves and their children. As my hon. Friend says, it is all the more important for us not to deter private landlords at a time when there is not enough social housing, and the amendments that the hon. Member for Ludlow (Matthew Green) quickly identified as probing amendments are designed to test the Government in that regard.
	The Council of Mortgage Lenders feels that the licensing of all HMOs would be excessive, but believes that there may be a back-door policy of extending licensing not just to them but to a substantial proportion of the private rented sector. Like the Opposition, it seeks assurances from the Government.
	I pay tribute to the Minister for taking on board the concern expressed in Committee about fit and proper persons. Government amendment No. 32 seeks to extend the definition of evidence relating to whether someone is a fit and proper person to evidence that a person has been convicted of sexual offences. The Government have tabled a number of other useful technical amendments, which shows that the Minister listened carefully in Committee. That does not surprise me, and I do not think that it will have surprised anyone else because much of the debate in Committee was constructive and intended to improve the Bill.
	I want to say a little about the Liberal Democrat amendments. I do not like to say more than is necessary about the Liberal Democrats, although we recently combined usefully on the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill, and I do not want to spoil the emerging affair between us and the minor party. [Laughter.] I mean, of course, the emerging political affair. I have to say, however, that amendment No. 105, which requires local housing authorities to fulfil their general duties within 12 months rather than five years, is a regulatory step too far. Authorities would, I think, find it extremely difficult to fulfil their obligations. That is an optimistic aspiration at best and in all probability an unrealistic one. Under amendment No. 106, if
	"there are good reasons why it cannot reasonably comply",
	a local authority may apply for an extension of the 12-month period to five years. The answer to that is that all authorities would apply, as few would be able to comply with what I consider an over-zealous time scale.
	Let me now say something about our new clauses 17 and 21. Conservative Members, along with many Labour Members, are champions of those who campaign against fuel poverty. I see that the hon. Member for Nottingham, South (Alan Simpson) is present. I want to make it clear, on my own behalf and that of my party, that he has a noble record in that respect. We can join forces in raising genuine questions about the Government's ability to meet their own targets for the delivery of warm homes. Fuel poverty blights lives and it is not acceptable for any Member or party to allow the problem to continue when it could be rectified with reasonable practical ease. Many Members have tabled amendments, at this stage and earlier, drawing attention to the concerns of those who, like me, are determined to highlight that problem.
	It is estimated that between 30,000 and 60,000 people die unnecessarily in winter because they have not enough money to heat their homes. I need say little more than that, except that we know that fuel poverty is caused by a combination of inadequate income and inadequate home insulation. New clause 21, which is modest and practical, is designed to push the Minister further towards a policy that would unite Members throughout the House in pursuit of the campaign against fuel poverty, in the interests of some of our most vulnerable citizens.
	New clause 17 would establish a housing ombudsman for students, who are specifically excluded from the regulations in the Bill. I note that amendment No. 124, tabled by the Liberal Democrats, requests their inclusion, but I do not think that that counteracts or contradicts our demand for an ombudsman, which has been welcomed by the National Union of Students. It has written to me saying that it welcomes our new clause in principle. A letter from the vice-president for welfare, who is running the NUS housing campaign, raises a number of specific issues about the role of the ombudsman. I also have good news from the housing ombudsman himself, who has written to me and also to my hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Mr. Syms) saying that he might well be able to add this responsibility to his existing brief, so that he or one of his deputies could perhaps become the students' ombudsman.
	We see a real need to protect vulnerable students. Most universities do a good job in providing accommodation and many halls of residence are of the highest possible standard, but it is important for us to build in some protection to deal with those that are not.
	I have tried to cover what is an enormous subject, given the grouping of the amendments and new clauses. I make no criticism of the Chair, of course. I hope that it is fair to say that all our amendments and new clauses are designed to be practical and positive, and I am sure that the Minister has read and will respond to them in that spirit.

Clive Betts: I should like to speak to amendment No. 3, which is also supported by two of my hon. Friends and three Liberal Democrat Members. I had therefore wondered whether I got the amendment right, but on balance I think that I probably have.
	This is a relatively simple amendment, which I am sure the Minister could simply accept. It deals with the issue, which was raised in Committee, of which houses in multiple occupation will be incorporated in the mandatory national licensing arrangements. The Minister said then that he was likely to use as the definition properties that had three or more storeys and five or more people living in them. The amendment seeks to change "and" to "or", so the definition would cover properties with three or more storeys or five or more people. That is an important point. Although the change involves the small words "and" and "or", it would make quite a big difference to some properties that will otherwise be excluded from the scheme.
	I should like to try to tease out a number of issues from the Minister, if he is in a teaseable mood today. I hope that we can get one or two responses from him. I am sure that he will say in response that the amendment would put the definition on the face of the Bill, whereas he prefers the position in which that is done by regulation through secondary legislation, because it is then easier to adapt to changing circumstances as we go along. I have listened to that argument with interest but if he is going to mount it, as I am sure that he will, perhaps he will also inform the House of whether he sees the definition that he gave in Committee, if that is what he is going to stick with—three or more storeys and five or more people—as just a starting point for a national licensing scheme. Does he foresee a situation in which, once local authorities have a certain number of properties in the national licensing framework, he might look to extend the definition as authorities become able to cope with more properties? It would be interesting to learn that from him, because it might give us a different appreciation of what he and the Government intend.
	Will the Minister reflect on why we are looking to introduce a national licensing system for HMOs at all? I suggest that there are two essential problems with HMOs, which come up over and over again. The issue that particularly interested him in Committee, which was why he wanted to stick with a definition that excluded any properties lower than three storeys, was risk. We went into the assessment that has been made of fire risk, and the conclusive evidence that the greatest risk of fire, and deaths from fire, in HMOs occurs in properties of three or more storeys. That is clear. However, I put it to the Minister that there are two main problems. Risk, particularly risk from fire, is one fundamental reason for licensing HMOs, but there is another difficulty, which perhaps occurs more often, although its impact is arguably less serious: nuisance. Nuisance from HMOs, where there is concern from neighbours about dereliction, rubbish scattered around the property and the noise and nuisance that can come from the occupants—often in part because a property is being badly managed—has little to do with a property's height and whether it has two or three storeys. It has much more to do with the number of people who live in a close environment. That is why my definition is better than that which the Minister proposes.

Chris Ruane: In my hon. Friend's definition of HMOs, would the three storeys include the cellar and the attic?

Clive Betts: We went through that in Committee and the Minister will probably be able to reinforce the argument. We were told then that an attic or cellar might well count towards the number of storeys. However, there is a further problem because if a landlord then chose to block off the cellar, basement or attic, the property might not count. There could therefore be a three-storey property with a blocked-up attic that was not included under the definition. That issue should be taken up, and perhaps the Minister will say more on it.

Lynne Jones: My hon. Friend mentioned the problems other than fire hazards that occur in HMOs of fewer than three storeys. Does he accept that, in many areas, particularly where there are large numbers of students occupying smaller properties, there can be similar problems even when only four people occupy a property? What are his views on the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South (Alan Simpson)?

Clive Betts: That is an interesting point, which takes us back to the arguments about the Housing Act 1996. The position of the Labour Opposition at that time was that the definition should be three or more storeys or four or more people, which is exactly what is in amendment No. 87, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South (Alan Simpson). I accept that point, but by sticking to the figures used by the Government and inserting "or" instead of "and", I am trying to raise the principle that the problems of HMOs do not just concern risks such as that from fire. They also concern the management of the property in terms of nuisance, especially in student areas. The number of people in a property is more important in that regard than the number of storeys. If the Minister insists on a definition that means that any property lower than three storeys, irrespective of the number of people in it, will not be subject to the national licensing arrangements, that leads to a position in which many properties where there is the potential to create nuisance will be excluded from the scheme. That is a real concern that I hope he will address. It is the additional issue of nuisance that I hope that he will take into account in the final definition.
	The Minister might point out that there can be additional licensing and that it is open to any local authority to designate an additional area in which the definition of HMOs for licensing can be different from that prescribed by the Minister for the national scheme. I have had discussions with him on that point and I hope that he will respond on it.
	Funding arrangements are important for local authorities because in their present budgets, education and social services funding tends to be passported, so that what is left is often constrained and under pressure. My understanding is that the first start-up costs of the national scheme will be borne by an up-front Government grant, but that the ongoing costs will be covered by the charge made for licences. However, when a local authority considers an additional licensing scheme, although any licences under that scheme will cover the day-to-day running costs, the start-up costs, because of the consultation that must be undertaken, are likely to be greater than the start-up costs of implementing the national licensing scheme. Yet as I understand it, there are to be no additional funds whatever from central Government for that.
	The start-up costs—for all the consultation and arrangements laid down in the Bill—of additional licensing arrangements will come out of the small amount of money that local authorities have for street cleaning, environmental improvements, parks and gardens, and other important services on which local people rely. Perhaps the Minister will consider giving us some comfort in that regard. It would not take much for central Government to agree that, where an additional licensing scheme is ultimately accepted and approved—the Minister said in Committee that he would not seek to second-guess local authorities on that—the start-up costs, at least, should be borne by central Government.

John Hayes: The hon. Gentleman is making a compelling case, as ever on such issues. What broad assessment has he made—or does he know what assessment the Minister has made—of those costs? I am particularly concerned about extra resources and staffing, and the retraining of existing staff. We have not had clear answers on that and I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman could elucidate.

Clive Betts: A response with that sort of detail is probably up to the Minister to give. I understand that he has accepted that, where there is a statutory requirement for a mandatory licensing scheme because that is an extra responsibility on local authorities, the Government are committed to providing for that under their principle of funding for such costs. However, they are not committed to funding any discretionary work that local authorities do on additional schemes.
	I know that other hon. Members want to speak, but I have a few more points to raise with the Minister. I understand that he is discussing with local authorities in housing market renewal areas the possibility that they could bring in additional licensing arrangements without having to come to the Secretary of State for approval for them. Perhaps the Minister could give us some information on that.
	Local authorities have mentioned the lack of interaction between the legislation and HMOs in terms of class 1 hazards. Has that problem been resolved? As I understand it, where there is a class 1 hazard, a prohibition order can be put on the property. As a result, the property could be excluded from being an HMO, but because such an order does not come into force for 28 days, and because there is a right to appeal during that period, it might be necessary for the local authority to take a decision on licensing the property as an HMO at the same time as it has identified a class 1 hazard. The problem associated with the class 1 hazard would not be resolved for some months, so what would the authority do in the meantime? That issue needs to be addressed.
	Finally, I turn to an important issue raised by Chris Galley, a Sheffield city council officer who is responsible for dealing with these matters. We need to be rigorous in introducing a national licensing scheme and local authorities need to be rigorous in enforcing it. But in addition to ensuring that we catch landlords who act wrongly, we should also be interested in educating them to act in the right way. As well as trying to raise standards through an inspection regime that is designed to catch landlords out, will there be funding for local authorities for the start-up costs of the scheme, so that they can engage with landlords through a proper education programme in an effort to raise standards? I doubt whether the cost of the licence will cover that, although the Minister will correct me if I am wrong. That is another important issue that needs to be addressed.

Matthew Green: This is a huge group of amendments, including 12 Liberal Democrat amendments and two new clauses that deal with seven major issues. In addition, we have added our names to amendment No. 3. I hope that the House will bear with me as I try to go through some of the amendments. I shall try to allow plenty of time for others to get in.
	I was mightily relieved to hear that the first two Conservative amendments are probing ones. I was worried that the Conservatives were harking back to their days as the party of over-regulation. I want to add to the comments of the hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Betts) on amendment No. 3. There is a real case for the Government's having to justify why they are not going for three storeys or five or more occupants, given that they supported that principle fairly extensively in the past. Indeed, the Entec report, which is one of their own commissioned reports, makes it clear that all three-storey houses in multiple occupation are high risk, regardless of occupancy levels. That is the very report on which the Government relied in making the case, and rightly so, for the licensing of HMOs. The same report also identified two-storey bedsits and homes for vulnerable persons as being high risk. A two-storey bedsit could easily contain five or more people, but currently, it would be outside the mandatory system, even though it should be in it.
	Amendment No. 3 would in fact cover only 120,000 properties, extending the provision to just 19 per cent. of HMOs. That is not over-regulation but regulation of the most vulnerable and dangerous properties. There is a real case for the Government to answer here. Their argument that they propose to rely on regulation might be satisfactory if we could believe that they would introduce it. However, they have made it clear throughout the process that they will regulate only in respect of three or more storeys and five or more occupants.
	Another argument that the Minister has used against the amendment is that local authorities could use the discretionary powers to extend the scheme to areas in which there were particular problems. A Shelter survey of local authority environmental health teams discovered that 13 of the 32 authorities taking part were considering additional licensing to cover a larger number of HMOs in their local area, but worryingly, 10 of the authorities that were not likely to extend licensing provided examples of dangerous and substandard HMOs that fell outside the limits of the mandatory scheme. The discretionary powers still have to be agreed by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, but the Minister has not said that the ODPM would agree to local authority applications for such powers—and it is clear that, even if it does agree, many local authorities are not likely to follow the procedure.
	I should point out that most of the local authorities that responded to the Shelter survey were Labour run. I wish the Minister would listen to those Labour authorities and councillors. I shall quote the excellent Labour authority of Telford and Wrekin, which is a near neighbour of mine. It has just been capped, but we shall leave that issue to one side for the moment; it is still rated as "excellent". It states:
	"Size and storeys are not the most important factors but increase the risk."
	However, that is the principle on which the Government are relying, in respect of a provision that will include very few properties.
	Amendment No. 105, which is one of our amendments, seeks to ensure that licensed houses in multiple occupation do not contain hazards that present a threat to the health or safety of occupants. As currently drafted, the Bill allows licensed properties to contain hazards for up to five years after the application for a licence. The amendment would require local authorities to bring such properties up to standard within 12 months. The Conservatives suggested a period of three years, but under our proposal, a local authority could apply for an additional discretionary period if it had particular problems.
	The Conservatives said that all local authorities would apply under the terms of such a provision, but not all would. For example, because my own South Shropshire district council is in a rural district—the Minister chided me in Committee because it has not undertaken a voluntary scheme—it has only three properties that fall within the HMO category. It should consider starting such a scheme quickly. Indeed, under our amendment, many local authorities could put such a scheme in place quickly, and those with a particular problem or burden could apply for extra time. So we have shown some flexibility. The amendment does not insist on a period of 12 months; a case can be made if a longer period is needed.

John Hayes: The hon. Gentleman will appreciate our concern about the capacity of local authorities to deal with these matters. He seems to be saying that those local authorities that do not in any case have many HMOs will find it very easy to adopt such a scheme, but the point of such legislation is that it should apply to places where the risk is greatest and the problem is at its height. What worries me is that there are insufficient resources and training for such duties, and we have had no assurance from the Minister that they will be provided.

Matthew Green: I share some of those concerns, but whereas ours is a practical amendment, the Government's provision simply gives everybody too much time. Five years is too long a period in which to allow such properties to be inspected and brought into the regime; indeed, the Conservative amendment reflects that by calling for a period of three years. We have tried to introduce a double-lock system, whereby inspection should take place within 12 months unless a strong case can be made for doing otherwise. These are different ways of approaching the same problem, but it is clear that the Government's proposed regulation is too lax for us to agree to—a fact that must cause Labour Back Benchers concern.
	I welcome Government amendment No. 32, which adds sex offences to the list of offences that local authorities will consider in deciding whether a licence applicant is a fit and proper person. This issue was raised in Committee, the Government undertook to look at it and they have rightly tabled an amendment on it. It is clearly unacceptable for a sex offender to be the manager of a property containing numerous potentially vulnerable people.
	Amendment No. 107 was designed to force the Government to discuss once again what they meant by the landlord controlling the actions of the tenant, but the Government have tabled their own amendment No. 33, which clarifies the licence holder's obligation, restricting it to "anti-social behaviour" by a tenant or visitor—and only to the extent that the landlord is "reasonably" able to do so. We welcome that, as we highlighted the matter in Committee. I shall spend no more time on amendment No. 107 because it has been largely dealt with by Government amendment No. 33. The Minister will not need to respond, which should save him a little time.
	Amendment No. 108 deals with an issue that I attempted to raise in Committee, but we all got a bit lost—perhaps that is the politest way of putting it—so I shall have another go. It is a probing amendment, designed to deal with the problem that the "no rent payable" sanction against unlicensed landlords in clause 72 could result in the eviction of tenants. The stipulation that section 21 of the Housing Act 1998 shall not apply prevents landlords from using the accelerated possession procedure to evict tenants as a result of those sanctions.
	The current provisions do not reflect the reality faced by tenants on low incomes with no security of tenure, who are unable to enforce their housing rights without risking eviction. HMOs represent a scarce housing resource and clause 72 could result in existing tenants being made homeless. Tenants with a shorthold tenancy will simply face possession action by their landlord if they attempt to enforce the "no rent payable" provision on unlicensed properties. In practice, many tenants will choose not to risk losing their homes and will simply continue to pay the rent. Those tenants on housing benefit will face withdrawal of their benefit, leaving them unable to pay their rent other than by dipping into what limited savings they might have. They risk homelessness if their landlord brings their shorthold tenancy to an end.
	The Select Committee heard from Brent private tenants' rights group, which raised that very point, as the Chairman, the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Bennett), will probably recall. It said:
	"Shorthold tenants will have no more power to refuse to pay the rent than they have power to exercise any other housing right. For housing benefit claimants, the situation is tragic, because their benefit will cease, and they will lose their homes at the earliest opportunity. Many of these tenants will be in priority need and will have no option but present as homeless to the local authority."
	The Local Government Association raised similar concerns.

Sarah Teather: I endorse my hon. Friend's point. My constituency has the highest number of houses in multiple occupancy anywhere in the country and the work done by the group that my hon. Friend mentioned is second to none in raising awareness of the issue.

Matthew Green: I thank my hon. Friend. She and the group are quite right to bring that matter to the House's attention.
	When the Select Committee reported, it concluded:
	"We are concerned that the 'no rent payable' provisions could have adverse consequences for tenants, potentially leading to their eviction. If the Government plans to retain these provisions, the final version of the Bill must include adequate safeguards so that tenants cannot be evicted because their landlord is unlicensed."
	That was clearly recognised by the Select Committee, and the Minister has not dealt satisfactorily with it. It is a relatively technical point and not of great political significance, so I hope that the Minister will have a closer look at the effects of the provision and agree to amendments in the other place.
	Our amendments Nos. 122 and 123 deal with issues that were not raised in Committee. They would amend the definition of hostel to include "short-term hostel". We define such a hostel as
	"a building . . . which offers temporary accommodation and is occupied wholly or mainly by visitors from outside the UK".
	It is primarily designed to deal with back-packers' hostels, in which there have been some hideous examples of fires in other parts of the world. We are concerned that the Bill does not cover those hostels. I hope that the Minister will either accept these amendments or present some alternatives. Such a provision could help to deal with the circumstances when people brought into the country by gangmasters have to live in very cramped conditions. I hope that the Government will accept some such amendment on the grounds that it would strengthen their powers in that respect.
	I welcome Government amendment No. 58, which repeats an amendment that I moved in Committee. It would delete the word "woman's" from the term "woman's refuge". I was never certain why the Government were restricting the provision to women's refuges, when there are also battered men. After amendment, the definition of a refuge is a place where people may stay if they have left their homes owing to physical or mental violence or threats of such from their spouse or cohabitee. I am glad to see such a unisex solution. As I said, I was surprised that the Government had been so sexist in their original drafting, which I am sure was just an aberration.
	I hope that we will vote on amendment No. 124, which would remove from the Bill the exemption of student halls of residence. It is supported by the National Union of Students, and the Government have not, frankly, argued a strong case why halls of residence should not be licensed. Indeed, in their 1999 consultation, the Government did not propose to exclude halls of residence, on the grounds that there was
	"some evidence of unacceptable standards in these sectors."
	That is stated in the Government's own consultation document. Subsequently, however, it has been suggested that public sector bodies, including universities, might be exempted from licensing, because they were under "some degree of control" or could be "expected to behave responsibly". In my opinion, that is not sufficient.
	I would like to raise one particular issue that was not debated in Committee. It came to my attention when I visited Manchester students' union. There, the university uses PFI schemes to deliver student halls of residence. They are run by private companies, but appear to be exempt because they are "university halls of residence". Yet they are being run for profit by outside companies. At the very least, I hope that the Minister will ensure that the definition does not exclude those properties from the licensing of HMOs, as would appear to be the case. The universities certainly believe that they are exempt from the legislation.

Andrew Bennett: Let someone else get in to the debate!

Matthew Green: I shall move swiftly on. The Chairman of the Select Committee will note that many amendments have been tabled in my name.
	Government amendment No. 67, which deals with student buildings, would have the opposite effect to our amendment No. 124 and would make the position worse.
	Our amendment No. 95 is a drafting amendment that accompanies new clause 28, which introduces a general duty of care on all landlords of houses in multiple occupation as defined by clause 213. It is supported by Shelter and the Select Committee. The matter was not raised in the Committee and I hope that the Minister will explain why the Government do not accept it.
	Our new clause 25 would introduce the possibility of a code of practice for landlords and I know that some landlord associations support the idea. Having such a code of practice is a means of delivering many of our objectives, including the licensing of HMOs, without overburdening regulation.
	Hon. Members will be pleased to hear that our remaining amendments—Nos. 120, 121, 96, 97 and 98—are drafting amendments that accompany new clause 28 and can be dealt with accordingly. I would have liked to explain some of the amendments further, but I have already incurred the wrath of the Select Committee Chairman, who is the victim of the Government's own programme motion as much as anything else. I will leave it there, but I repeat that I want to press amendment No. 124 to a vote.

Alan Simpson: I rise to support amendment No. 87, which I intend to press to a vote.
	I begin by thanking the Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes), for his kind and generous remarks about my work on fuel poverty. That is an issue to which we will return later in the debate. I also want to thank the members of the Standing Committee that considered the Bill—and especially my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Betts)—for what they said in Committee about the problems encountered in university cities, and the proliferation of properties that are being acquired and turned into HMOs.
	I also want to congratulate the Government on grasping the nettle that is a national licensing scheme. However, I want to press the amendment, as the holes in what we have done mean that people will criticise us rather than thank us.
	Last night, I attended a public meeting in my constituency. The banner headline on yesterday's edition of the Nottingham Evening Post was "Students Drove Me to the Brink of Suicide". A two-page spread inside told how attractive areas of the city were doomed to become the slums of the future. Such was the scale of feeling in the city that the meeting was covered on BBC Radio Nottingham as an outside broadcast.
	I did not come across anyone at the meeting who was close to suicide, but many appeared to be close to murder. People expressed a great deal of anger at the way in which their lives, in settled areas and communities, had been turned over because properties that were traditionally family houses had been sucked up and converted into HMOs.
	Nottingham is the fastest growing university city in the country. In a couple of years, its student population will total about 55,000. In some of the areas that I represent, half the properties are occupied by students in HMOs. The police complain that those areas are becoming unpoliceable. Schools say that families no longer live there, and that as a result there are no children to make up school roll requirements. Many residents say that they do not have a clue where the landlords of these properties can be found.
	Representatives of landlords' associations were on the panel at last night's meeting, but even they said that they had nothing to fear from an inclusive regulatory process that meant that everyone running an HMO should be subject to a licence. However, there are gaps in the way that the Bill defines HMOs, and the landlords at last night's meeting said that those gaps will be an invitation to cowboys.
	Good landlords do not present a problem—many of the best have been involved in setting up voluntary agreements, and they stand by those agreements—but cowboys are a problem for everyone. The landlords told the meeting that the proposed definition of HMO will allow the most exploitative of landlords to move from three-storey properties into two-storey properties, and that that is exactly what they will do. They said that those landlords will seek to exploit the definition and make the greatest amount of money for the smallest outlay. Do they care about standards and conditions? Not one jot, we were told, and that is why I urge the House to support a definition that is as inclusive as it needs to be if we are to preclude the Bill becoming a cowboys' charter.
	Many residents at the meeting asked exactly the same questions as the local authority was trying to ask. How do we deal with misbehaviour by tenants when there is no constraint on the people who own the property? The Government—rightly, properly and proudly—have introduced a series of measures to tackle the standards of tenants' behaviour, including antisocial behaviour orders. In addition, local authorities have been invited to take a much tougher and intrusive line when it comes to telling council tenants, "Look, if you can't control your kid's behaviour, your tenancy is in jeopardy and you can expect to be evicted."
	Do any similar powers exist in respect of the private sector, and HMOs? No. Last night, everyone—including representatives of the police, the local authority, landlords and the universities, and even student bodies—was asking for a level playing field. They want standards of decency and community stability to be part of the framework for housing provision, in which safe neighbourhoods and sustainable communities are delivered, and are not just slogans used by the Government.
	We can achieve that if we have the courage to use a definition that covers the majority of properties currently being acquired and converted into HMOs. My definition would accept the three-storey limit but would apply to properties in which four or more people live. Effectively, therefore, it would also cover properties in the two-storey category.
	I hope that the House has the courage to vote for the amendment. If it does, landlords, local authorities, students and communities across the country will sing our praises. If we do not have that courage, we will get only brickbats from communities that are divided against each other.

Harold Best: The account just given by my good and hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South (Alan Simpson) mirrors what is going on in my constituency. One difference is that the equivalent of what happened at his public meeting last night happened seven years ago in my area.
	The Bill is to be welcomed. I want to place on the record my appreciation of the efforts of my right hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Planning. Real work has been done that will help to ease the real problems that exist. I want to deal with how the peculiarities of tenancy agreements and property management have been exaggerated by the explosive growth in student numbers. That has happened in densely populated areas that once were homes for traditional families.

Andy Reed: Does my hon. Friend accept that in a place such as Loughborough, a market town with a population of between 55,000 to 60,000, the impact of student numbers—there are between 12,500 and 14,500, depending on how one counts them—is even greater than in large cities? I support amendment No. 87 because the vast majority of properties in towns such as Loughborough are much smaller, being terraced houses with two or three bedrooms. The problem highlighted by my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South (Alan Simpson) is enormous in my area, and has also caused house prices in the town centre to rise way beyond the traditional entry level for first-time buyers.

Harold Best: I have no difficulty in endorsing that point. The problem is not confined to large cities. Leeds has a population of 750,000 and it has two universities. In addition, people attending Huddersfield university live in what has become the student area. The effect on house prices is equivalent to what my hon. Friend described in his constituency.
	I want the Bill to contain a clear definition of the term "storey". How many storeys does a particular house have? For example, a traditional family house with a ground floor, a first floor and an attic used to be considered to have two storeys. Such houses used to cover acres of land in my constituency. However, for practical purposes—and those are what we must be concerned about—those houses have four storeys. That is important: thousands of houses that used to be family homes have been opened up to exploitation, with a catastrophic effect on what we might normally call community structures. For example, it is difficult to get people to vote. We have polls in which the turnout is only 12 per cent., which is unbelievable given that 10 years ago, in the same area, turnout was between 40 and 50 per cent. in local government elections.
	The other issue is crime. That area had the highest burglary rate in the UK last year and the year before. It will probably have the highest rate this year and next. The peculiarities that we are legislating for must be understood. I appreciate the Minister's efforts, but this legislative programme must be further advanced as rapidly as possible.

Keith Hill: This has been a lively debate, in the course of which many separate issues have been raised. I shall respond first to the issues raised by the hon. Member for Ludlow (Matthew Green) on behalf of the Liberal Democrats, because what I have to say may be of interest to all those who have contributed to the debate.
	The hon. Gentleman spoke in support of amendments Nos. 127 and 128, and I have to tell him that the Government have no plans to extend mandatory licensing. However, as I have said before, we intend to review the operation of the licensing system within three years and we will come back to the House if any proposal to amend it finds favour. I hope that that gives the hon. Gentleman some comfort. I also hope that other colleagues will have heard that reassurance.
	The hon. Gentleman also discussed other amendments, including new clause 21, with which I shall deal if I have time. However, we will have the opportunity to debate the issues of warm homes and energy efficiency under a later group. I turn, therefore, to those issues on which an intention to divide the House was expressed. Amendment No. 124 was spoken to by the hon. Gentleman. It would remove the exemption from the definition of houses in multiple occupation for those properties managed by universities and occupied by their students, such as halls of residence, in schedule 11.
	I genuinely believe that there has been a misunderstanding in some quarters about whether property owned by universities but leased to other bodies for them to manage is also exempt from the definition. That is not the case, and Government amendment No. 60 clarifies that position. We tabled that amendment to make the situation clearer. Properties owned by universities and managed by another company, but of which the university retains control—and continues to receive the rents from the tenants—will be exempt from the HMO definition and, therefore, licensing. Properties that are owned by universities but managed by another organisation, and of which the university does not retain control—for example, because it has granted a long lease—will not be exempt from the HMO definition and may therefore be subject to licensing. That clarifies the position and goes some way towards what the National Union of Students and others would like. However, it does not go far enough for them, as they would like all properties owned by universities but managed by another organisation to come within the HMO definition.
	The Government are aware of the concerns expressed by the National Union of Students about the conditions in some halls of residence. We are not, however, convinced that licensing or management regulations would be a solution to those problems. For a start, we are not aware that the problems are on the scale alleged. I have seen examples and they appeared mainly to concern the physical condition of the property. As I said in Committee, those issues can be addressed through part 1 of the Bill, which covers the health and safety rating system—and could not in any case be dealt with through licensing. Of course, I appreciate that there will be cases of management failure, but the Government expect universities and other higher education establishments to regard the health, safety and welfare of their students as of paramount importance, equally in the lecture halls and in the residential accommodation they provide.

John Hayes: If the Minister had accepted our suggestion of an ombudsman, perhaps some of the arguments for bringing all student accommodation into the net would have evaporated. The Minister said that there were some problems, although they were not general. Why not have an ombudsman to whom people could appeal in those exceptional cases?

Keith Hill: I hope to respond to the remarks made by the hon. Gentleman on the issue of a student ombudsman and, if he will permit me, I shall complete my line of thinking in an attempt to persuade the Liberal Democrats not to divide the House.
	If, in individual cases, there are grounds for complaint about poor management, any complaints should be made to the university authorities, and the Government anticipate that they will be dealt with promptly and effectively. However, as there is little hard evidence of widespread poor management of university halls of residence, the Government are not persuaded that there is a sufficiently strong case for bringing university-managed accommodation in England and Wales within the definition of HMOs, other than for the purpose of part 1 of the Bill.
	I come now to amendments Nos. 3 and 87 and the debate on studentification, which was less defensive than concerned. A divergence of opinion was evident between hon. Members about when the requirement for mandatory licensing should apply. My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Betts) will know that we debated extensively in Committee the Government's proposed scope for mandatory licensing of HMOs—those of three storeys or more and occupied by five or more persons—and the reasons for that formulation. Amendment No. 3, tabled by my hon. Friend, would require a local authority to licence all HMOs of three storeys or more, or any HMO occupied by five persons or more. By contrast, my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South (Alan Simpson) tabled amendment No. 87, which seeks mandatory licensing of HMOs of three storeys or more and occupied by four or more persons.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe raised many highly detailed questions, and I know that he will forgive me if I say that this is not the time or place to respond in similar detail. However, I undertake to write to him in response to the issues that he raised. His starting question was whether the current mandatory regime was a starting point for a mandatory licensing regime. As I have said before, that is not the Government's intention. We have accepted the principle of mandatory licensing, but we have done so on the basis of a clear and pragmatic justification—the issue of vulnerability to fire risk.

Desmond Turner: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Keith Hill: I shall give way to my hon. Friend in a second when I have completed this thought. The Government have borne in mind two considerations on the issue of mandatory licensing—the burden on local authorities, which any licensing regime would impose, and our wish to protect and encourage the private rented sector, which I also mentioned in Committee. Of course, we shall bear down on abusive landlords, but we recognise that on the whole the sector plays an extremely important role in the housing industry, both by giving people a first step on the housing ladder and in relation to labour mobility. The sector is also rather vulnerable—the average landlord owns only three properties. It has been characterised as a cottage industry, so we are reluctant to impose excessive burdens on it. We want to encourage it rather than burden it.
	I apologise for taking so long to make my point. I shall now give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Dr. Turner).

Desmond Turner: I want to refer to amendments Nos. 1 and 2, which are grouped with amendment No. 127. They would restore a principle that the Government had previously agreed in respect of my private Member's Bill, and would deal with licensing, energy efficiency and energy conservation requirements for HMOs, given that such properties are subject to some of the worst energy conservation conditions and the greatest fuel poverty, and house some of the poorest and most vulnerable tenants. That principle was agreed by the Government two years ago, so can my right hon. Friend explain why it is no longer part of the HMO licensing requirements? Will he consider reinstating it?

Keith Hill: We have already discussed the new housing health and safety rating system, which, as my hon. Friend knows, would allow cold and damp to be taken into consideration in the orders and requirements that environmental health officers might make. We shall by no means exclude issues such as warmth and thermal energy from our approach to the condition of housing stock and the need for action. My hon. Friend has considerable expertise in such matters, so he, better than most, knows that we are committed, through the warm front programme, to extensive improvement in providing warm housing stock in the private sector. However, we are certainly not in a position at this stage to make as a requirement the sort of measures that he recommended in his earlier proposals.
	I want to return to some of the issues raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe and I shall then respond to the remarks made by my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South. I listened very carefully to my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe to ascertain the justification for his proposal to extend the mandatory licensing regime, and it was on the basis of nuisance. As he knows, the Government are clear about their criterion for mandatory licensing: it is based on a clear assessment of fire risk. However, I remain to be convinced that the properties that would be included in my hon. Friend's extended definition of mandatory licensing for HMOs would intrinsically be sources of nuisance or would have the potential to create nuisance.
	In response both to my hon. Friend and to my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South, who raised a different concern—the studentification phenomenon—I point out that the Government are providing for an additional licensing regime, as all colleagues are aware, and where there is evidence of proven wrongdoing and proven risk there is the possibility of extending the licensing regime beyond what is caught by the current mandatory proposals. I hope to speak about that shortly.

Andy Reed: Does my right hon. Friend understand the frustration in places such as Loughborough, where 98 per cent. of properties would not fall within the Government's current definition? As he knows from his many visits to the wonderful town of Loughborough, the town centre, especially the Storer road area, has changed dramatically, so a much narrower definition is required. There is nuisance, and if he would like me to join him in a walk around the Storer road area to see the consequences of not having a licensing scheme I should be more than willing to do so.

Keith Hill: I have not had the opportunity to discuss these matters with my hon. Friend, but I have certainly had ample opportunities, both in formal and informal contexts, to discuss them with my hon. Friends the Members for Leeds, North-West (Mr. Best) and for Nottingham, South. I have told them repeatedly that the Government cannot, in the Bill, legislate for where people live. We are legislating on the physical condition and management of housing stock. It is not invariably the case that students live in housing of poor physical condition. Indeed, it is frequently asserted that the studentification of abandoned city centre areas can actually lift the quality of the stock. Similarly, it is not the case that properties in student areas are, without exception, badly managed.
	I do not for one moment deny the consequences of the concentration of student populations in terms of local services. There are certainly pressures on local schools and there may even be pressures on services such as post office facilities, but those issues do not relate directly either to the quality of the housing stock or the prevailing management conditions of that stock. I repeat that where a case can be made that there is systemic poor management of properties in localities, the additional licensing regime for which the Bill provides will respond to those situations.

Lynne Jones: I thank my right hon. Friend for giving way, but he somewhat misleads the House by giving the impression that studentification, as he calls it, can lead to an increase in the amenities or the quality of the housing stock in an area. Certainly, most of my hon. Friends who have experience of the problem in their constituencies would say that the houses converted to student accommodation are, by and large, former owner-occupied properties in good condition and that studentification leads to a great deterioration in the area and in the quality of life there.

Keith Hill: I do not for a moment challenge my hon. Friend's observation about the quality of life, but I simply say that the argument goes both ways on whether the acquisition of properties for the purpose of accommodating students leads automatically to a decline in the quality of the physical condition of those properties. The argument goes both ways, and there are persuasive arguments on both sides.
	I need rapidly to move on to explain and offer some reassurance, I very much hope, to the House about the possibilities for interventions in the licensing domain under this legislation. As I explained in Committee, the Government have adopted three-storey HMOs as the starting point for mandatory licensing because those properties pose the greatest risk of causing injury or death from fire. People living in a two-storey HMO are about four times less likely to die as a result of a fire than those living in a three-storey building.
	As I also said, the number of occupants is a factor to be considered. Clearly, the greater the numbers of storeys in an HMO, the more people are likely to live in the property, so the risk of fire increases. Of course, many HMOs are less than three storeys and house five people or more, but those people are far less vulnerable to injury from fire than those in three-storey houses. I also appreciate that some three-storey HMOs are occupied by four people, but it is far more likely that three-storey buildings will house more people than that number, and I reiterate that the greater the number of persons, the higher the risk of fire.
	We have estimated that mandatory licensing will apply to about 120,000 properties in England, housing five or more people. A line must be drawn somewhere on where HMO mandatory licensing applies. The Government believe that we have got this right at properties with three storeys and above that are occupied by five or more people, forming at least two households. However, local authorities must have, and we are giving them, powers to license problematic categories of HMOs in their areas. If a local authority establishes that there are management problems with all HMOs of, for example, three storeys or more occupied by four people or all HMOs occupied by five people that justify licensing, we are giving the local authority the tools to do so with the additional licensing regime.
	I very much hope that that serves to reassure colleagues who come to the House with quite desperate concerns about the pressures arising from a concentration of student numbers.
	It being two and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on the programme motion, Madam Deputy Speaker put the Question already proposed from the Chair, pursuant to Order [this day].
	Amendment negatived.
	Madam Deputy Speaker then proceeded to put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that hour.

Clause 60
	 — 
	Requirement for HMOs to be Licensed

Amendment made: No. 31, in page 39, line 40, leave out '(1) or (2)'.—[Keith Hill.]

Clause 65
	 — 
	Tests for fitness etc. and satisfactory management arrangements

Amendment made: No. 32, in page 43, line 10, at end insert
	'or any offence listed in Schedule 3 to the Sexual Offences Act 2003 (offences attracting notification requirements)'.—[Keith Hill.]

Clause 66
	 — 
	Licence conditions

Amendment made: No. 33, in page 44, line 10, leave out
	'steps to be taken with a view to controlling the behaviour of'
	and insert
	'the taking of such steps as are reasonably practicable to prevent or reduce anti-social behaviour by'.—[Keith Hill.]

Clause 75
	 — 
	Index of defined expressions: Part 2

Amendments made: No. 34, in page 50, line 32, at end insert—
	
		
			  
			 'Anti-social behaviour Section 56(5)'. 
		
	
	No. 14, in page 51, line 3, at end insert—
	
		
			  
			 'Modifications Section 209(7)'. 
		
	
	—[Keith Hill.]

New Clause 6
	 — 
	HMO declarations

'(1)   If a local housing authority are satisfied that subsection (2) applies to a building or part of a building in their area, they may serve a notice under this section (an "HMO declaration") declaring the building or part to be a house in multiple occupation.
	(2)   This subsection applies to a building or part of a building if the building or part meets any of the following tests (as it applies without the sole use condition)—
	(a)   the standard test (see section 213(1A)),
	(b)   the self-contained flat test (see section 213(1B)), or
	(c)   the converted building test (see section 213(1C)),
	and the occupation, by persons who do not form a single household, of the living accommodation or flat referred to in the test in question constitutes a significant use of that accommodation or flat.
	(3)   In subsection (2) "the sole use condition" means the condition contained in—
	(a)   section 213(1A)(d) (as it applies for the purposes of the standard test or the self-contained flat test), or
	(b)   section 213(1C)(e),
	as the case may be.
	(4)   The notice must—
	(a)   state the date of the authority's decision to serve the notice,
	(b)   be served on each relevant person within the period of seven days beginning with the date of that decision,
	(c)   state the day on which it will come into force if no appeal is made under subsection (9) against the authority's decision, and
	(d)   set out the right to appeal against the decision under subsection (9) and the period within which an appeal may be made.
	(5)   The day stated in the notice under subsection (4)(c) must be not less than 28 days after the date of the authority's decision to serve the notice.
	(6)   If no appeal is made under subsection (9) before the end of that period of 28 days, the notice comes into force on the day stated in the notice.
	(7)   If such an appeal is made before the end of that period of 28 days, the notice does not come into force unless and until a decision is given on the appeal which confirms the notice and either—
	(a)   the period within which an appeal to the Lands Tribunal may be brought expires without such an appeal having been brought, or
	(b)   if an appeal to the Lands Tribunal is brought, a decision is given on the appeal which confirms the notice.
	(8)   For the purposes of subsection (7), the withdrawal of an appeal has the same effect as a decision which confirms the notice appealed against.
	(9)   Any relevant person may appeal to a residential property tribunal against a decision of the local housing authority to serve an HMO declaration.
	The appeal must be made within the period of 28 days beginning with the date of the authority's decision.
	(10)   Such an appeal—
	(a)   is to be by way of a re-hearing, but
	(b)   may be determined having regard to matters of which the authority were unaware.
	(11)   The tribunal may—
	(a)   confirm or reverse the decision of the authority, and
	(b)   if it reverses the decision, revoke the HMO declaration.
	(12)   In this section and section (Revocation of HMO declarations) "relevant person", in relation to an HMO declaration, means any person who, to the knowledge of the local housing authority, is—
	(a)   a person having an estate or interest in the building or part of the building concerned (but is not a tenant under a lease with an unexpired term of 3 years of less), or
	(b)   a person managing or having control of that building or part (and not falling within paragraph (a)).'.—[Keith Hill.]
	Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 7
	 — 
	Revocation of HMO declarations

'(1)   A local housing authority may revoke an HMO declaration served under section (HMO declarations) at any time if they consider that subsection (2) of that section no longer applies to the building or part of the building in respect of which the declaration was served.
	(2)   The power to revoke an HMO declaration is exercisable by the authority either—
	(a)   on an application made by a relevant person, or
	(b)   on the authority's own initiative.
	(3)   If, on an application by such a person, the authority decide not to revoke the HMO declaration, they must without delay serve on him a notice informing him of—
	(a)   the decision,
	(b)   the reasons for it and the date on which it was made,
	(c)   the right to appeal against it under subsection (4), and
	(d)   the period within which an appeal may be made under that subsection.
	(4)   A person who applies to a local housing authority for the revocation of an HMO declaration under subsection (1) may appeal to a residential property tribunal against a decision of the authority to refuse to revoke the notice.
	The appeal must be made within the period of 28 days beginning with the date specified under subsection (3) as the date on which the decision was made.
	(5)   Such an appeal—
	(a)   is to be by way of a re-hearing, but
	(b)   may be determined having regard to matters of which the authority were unaware.
	(6)   The tribunal may—
	(a)   confirm or reverse the decision of the authority, and
	(b)   if it reverses the decision, revoke the HMO declaration.'.—[Keith Hill.]
	Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

Schedule 11
	 — 
	Buildings which are not HMOs (except in Part 1)

Amendment proposed: No. 124, in page 218, line 1, leave out paragraph 5.—[Matthew Green.]
	The House divided: Ayes 166, Noes 294.

Question accordingly negatived.

Alan Simpson: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. You will be aware that a large part of the preceding debate focused on the contentious subject of houses in multiple occupation and properties that are included in that category. Given that hon. Members in all parts of the House saw that as a central issue, can you advise me how Members with strong feelings on the matter might secure a vote on the definition, which will be central to this part of our housing strategy?

Madam Deputy Speaker: Under the programme motion, there are times when the occupant of the Chair has some very difficult decisions to make, and I realise that in that instance it is unlikely we will please all of the Members all of the time. There are a number of amendments still to be discussed in this place. Of course, the Bill does go to another place.

Clause 1
	 — 
	New system for assessing housing conditions and enforcing housing standards

Amendment made: No. 125, in page 2, line 41, leave out from 'persons' to the end of line 43 and insert
	'who form a single household.'.—[Keith Hill.]

Clause 213
	 — 
	Meaning of "house in multiple occupation"

Amendments made: No. 50, in page 156, line 19, leave out subsection (1) and insert—
	'(1)   For the purposes of this Act a building or a part of a building is a "house in multiple occupation" if—
	(a)   it meets the conditions in subsection (1A) ("the standard test");
	(b)   it meets the conditions in subsection (1B) ("the self-contained flat test");
	(c)   it meets the conditions in subsection (1C) ("the converted building test");
	(d)   a declaration notice is in force in respect of it under section (HMO declarations); or
	(e)   it is a converted block of flats to which section 215 applies.
	(1A)   A building or a part of a building meets the standard test if—
	(a)   it consists of one or more units of living accommodation not consisting of a self-contained flat or flats;
	(b)   the living accommodation is occupied by persons who do not form a single household (see section 216);
	(c)   the living accomodation is occupied by those persons as their only or main residence or they are to be treated as so occupying it (see section 217);
	(d)   their occupation of the living accommodation constitutes the only use of that accommodation;
	(e)   rents are payable or other consideration is to be provided by at least one of those persons in respect of their occupation of the living accommodation; and
	(f)   two or more of the households who occupy the living accommodation share one or more basic amenities or the living accommodation is lacking in one or more basic amenities.
	(1B)   A part of a building meets the self-contained flat test if—
	(a)   it consists of a self-contained flat; and
	(b)   paragraphs (b) to (f) of subsection (1A) apply (reading references to the living accommodation concerned as references to the flat).
	(1C)   A building or a part of a building meets the converted building test if—
	(a)   it is a converted building;
	(b)   it contains one or more units of living accommodation that do not consist of a self-contained flat or flats (whether or not it also contains any such flat or flats);
	(c)   the living accommodation is occupied by persons who do not form a single household (see section 216);
	(d)   the living accomodation is occupied by those persons as their only or main residence or they are to be treated as so occupying it (see section 217);
	(e)   their occupation of the living accommodation constitutes the only use of that accommodation; and
	(f)   rents are payable or other consideration is to be provided by at least one of those persons in respect of their occupation of the living accommodation.'.
	No. 51, in page 157, line 13, leave out from 'a' to 'is' in line 15 and insert
	'building or part of a building consisting of living accommodation which, having regard to the layout of that accommodation,'.
	No. 52, in page 157, leave out line 19 and insert—
	'"self-contained flat" means a separate set of premises (whether or not on the same floor)—
	(a)   which forms part of a building;
	(b)   either the whole or a material part of which lies above or below some other part of the building; and
	(c)   in which all three basic amenities are available for the exclusive use of its occupants.'.—[Keith Hill.]

Clause 214
	 — 
	HMOs: houses and other relevant buildings

Amendment made: No. 53, in page 157, line 20, leave out clause 214.—[Keith Hill.]

Clause 215
	 — 
	HMOs: certain converted blocks of flats

Amendment made: No. 126, in page 159, leave out from 'a' in line 2 to end of line 4 and insert
	'house in multiple occupation under section 213(1)(e)), does not affect the status of any flat in the block as a house in multiple occupation.'.—[Keith Hill.]

Clause 216
	 — 
	HMOs: persons not forming a single household

Amendment made: No. 56, in page 159, line 8, leave out '(1)'.—[Keith Hill.]

Clause 217
	 — 
	HMOs: persons treated as occupying premises as only or main residence

Amendments made: No. 57, in page 159, line 35, leave out '(1)'.
	No. 58, in page 159, line 41, leave out 'women's'.
	No. 59, in page 159, line 44, at end insert—
	'(3)   In subsection (2)(b) "refuge" means a building or part of a building managed by a voluntary organisation and used wholly or mainly for the temporary accommodation of persons who have left their homes as a result of—
	(a)   physical violence or mental abuse, or
	(b)   threats of such violence or abuse, from persons to whom they are or were married or with whom they are or were co-habiting.'—[Keith Hill.]

Schedule 11
	 — 
	Buildings which are not HMOs (except in Part 1)

Amendments made: No. 65, in page 217, leave out line 14.
	No. 66, in page 217, line 16, at end insert—
	'(za)   a local housing authority,'.
	No. 67, in page 218, line 3,leave out 'only' and insert 'solely or principally'.
	No. 68, in page 218, line 20, leave out
	'a leasehold estate in it'
	and insert
	', whether in the whole or any part of it, either the freehold estate or a leasehold interest'.
	No. 69, in page 218, line 27, at end insert
	', except for the purpose of determining the status of any flat in the block'.—[Keith Hill.]

Clause 86
	 — 
	Tests for fitness etc. and satisfactory management arrangements

Amendment made: No. 35, in page 58, line 17, at end insert
	'or any offence listed in Schedule 3 to the Sexual Offences Act 2003 (offences attracting notification requirements)'.—[Keith Hill.]

Clause 87
	 — 
	Licence conditions

Amendment made: No. 36, in page 59, line 15, leave out
	'steps to be taken with a view to controlling the behaviour of'
	and insert
	'the taking of such steps as are reasonably practicable to prevent or reduce anti-social behaviour by'.—[Keith Hill.]

Clause 96
	 — 
	Interim and final management orders: introductory

Amendment made: No. 37, in page 65, line 34, leave out '(1) or (2)'.—[Keith Hill.]

Clause 98
	 — 
	Special interim management orders

Amendment made: No. 38, in page 68, line 13, after 'interim' insert 'or final'.—[Keith Hill.]

Clause 100
	 — 
	Operation of interim management orders

Amendment made: No. 39, in page 70, line 2, leave out from beginning to 'on' in line 4.—[Keith Hill.]

Clause 101
	 — 
	Local housing authority's duties once interim management order in force

Amendment made: No. 40, in page 70, line 33, leave out
	'the house is not an HMO other than one to which Part 2 of this Act applies,'
	and insert
	'subsection (4) does not apply to the house,'.—[Keith Hill.]

Clause 104
	 — 
	Financial arrangements while order is in force

Amendment made: No. 41, in page 73, line 24, at end insert—
	'(4A)   The interim management order may provide for—
	(a)   the rate of interest which is to apply for the purposes of paragraph (b) of subsection (4); and
	(b)   the intervals at which payments are to be made under that subsection.
	Paragraph 24(2A) of Schedule 6 enables an appeal to be brought where the order does not provide for both of those matters.'.—[Keith Hill.]

Clause 107
	 — 
	Making of final management orders

Amendment made: No. 42, in page 75, line 17, leave out
	'be an HMO other than one to which Part 2 applies,'
	and insert
	'not be one that would be required to be licensed as mentioned in subsection (2)(a),'.—[Keith Hill.]

Clause 108
	 — 
	Operation of final management orders

Amendment made: No. 43, in page 76, line 40, leave out from beginning to 'on' in line 42.—[Keith Hill.]

Clause 129
	 — 
	Index of defined expressions: Part 4

Amendment made: No. 17, in page 91, line 33, at end insert—
	
		
			  
			 'Modifications Section 209(7)'. 
		
	
	—[Keith Hill.]

Schedule 6
	 — 
	Management orders: procedure and appeals

Amendments made: No. 62, in page 191, line 14, leave out 'and'.
	No. 63, in page 191, line 15, at end insert
	'and
	'(c)the date on which the order is to cease to have effect in accordance with section 100(4) and (5) or 108(3) and (4) (or, if applicable, how the date mentioned in section 100(6) is to be determined),'.
	No. 64, in page 194, line 44, at end insert—
	'(2A)   An appeal may be made under sub-paragraph (1)(b) on the grounds that the terms of interim management order do not provide for one or both of the matters mentioned in section 104(4A)(a) and (b) (which relate to payments of surplus rent etc.).
	(2B)   Where an appeal is made under sub-paragraph (1)(b) only on those grounds—
	(a)   the appeal may be brought at any time while the order is in force (with the result that nothing in sub-paragraph (3) or paragraph 25 applies in relation to the appeal); and
	(b)   the powers of the residential property tribunal under paragraph 26 are limited to determining whether the order should be varied by the tribunal so as to include a term providing for the matter or matters in question, and (if so) what provision should be made by the term.'.—[Keith Hill.]

New Clause 13
	 — 
	Section 138: imposition of conditions.

'(1)   A potential buyer who has made a request to which section 138(1) applies may be required to comply with either or both of the following conditions before any copy is provided.
	(2)   The potential buyer may be required to pay a charge authorised by section 138(7).
	(3)   The potential buyer may be required to accept any terms specified in writing which—
	(a)   are proposed by the seller or in pursuance of his instructions; and
	(b)   relate to the use or disclosure of the copy (or any information contained in or derived from it).
	(4)   Such a condition is only effective if it is notified to the potential buyer before the end of the period of 14 days beginning with the day on which the request is made.
	(5)   Where the potential buyer has been so notified of either or both of the conditions authorised by this section, the permitted period for the purposes of section 138 is the period of 14 days beginning with—
	(a)   where one condition is involved, the day on which the potential buyer complies with it by—
	(i)   making the payment demanded, or
	(ii)   accepting the terms proposed (or such other terms as may be agreed between the seller and the potential buyer in substitution for those proposed),
	as the case may be; or
	(b)   where both conditions are involved, the day (or the later of the days) on which the potential buyer complies with them by taking the action mentioned in paragraph (a)(i) and (ii).'.—[Keith Hill.]
	Brought up, and read the First time.

Keith Hill: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Madam Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: New clause 27—Incomplete home information packs—
	'A property may be marketed with an incomplete Home Information Pack in circumstances where reasonable efforts have been made to obtain the missing information.'.
	New clause 32—Regulation of estate agents—
	'(1)   The Secretary of State shall by regulations set up a mandatory licensing scheme for persons engaged in estate agency work in relation to Home Information Packs to ensure that such persons satisfy minimum standards of competence.
	(2)   The regulations shall specify a degree of practical experience which is to be taken as evidence of competence and, without prejudice to the generality of subsection (1) above, the regulations shall also—
	(a)   prescribe professional or academic qualifications which shall also be taken to be evidence of competence;
	(b)   designate any body of persons as a body which may itself specify professional qualifications the holding of which is to be taken as evidence of competence;
	(c)   make provision for and in connection with the establishment of a body having power to examine and inquire into the competence of persons engaged or professing to engage in estate agency work; and
	(d)   delegate to a body established under paragraph (c) above the powers of the Secretary of State with respect to the matters referred to in paragraph (a) above.'.
	Government amendments Nos. 81 and 82.
	Amendment No. 88, in clause 137, page 94, line 21, leave out from beginning to 'have' and insert
	'As a matter of voluntary discretion, a person may'.
	[R] Relevant registered interest declared.
	Amendment No. 110, in page 94, line 23, after '143', insert
	'unless the property is marketed as being sold without a home information pack'.'
	Amendment No. 89, in page 94, line 23, at end insert—
	'(1A)   The seller, when marketing the property, is obliged to specify whether or not a home information pack is to be provided'.
	Amendment No. 90, in page 94, line 24, leave out subsection (2).
	Amendment No. 109, in page 94, line 30, at end insert—
	'(   )   the seller markets the property himself'.
	Amendment No. 111, in page 94, line 30, at end insert—
	'(c)   the seller has indicated that the property is to be sold without a home information pack'.
	Amendment No. 91, in clause 138, page 94, line 33, after 'which,' insert ', where available,'.
	Government amendments Nos. 83 and 84.
	Amendment No. 112, in page 95, line 10, leave out paragraph (c).
	Government amendment No. 85.
	Amendment No. 113, in clause 144, page 99, line 3, at end insert—
	'(aa)   for ensuring that members of the scheme are independent'.
	Amendment No. 114, in page 99, line 4, leave out 'suitable' and insert 'adequate and appropriate'.
	Amendment No. 115, in page 99, line 10, at end insert—
	'(   )   for sellers, buyers and lenders to be entitled to bring proceedings in respect of a home condition report upon which they have relied in any transaction'.
	Amendment No. 92, in page 99, line 16, at end insert—
	'(8)   A responsible person will be exempt from the requirement to provide a Home Condition Report in the following circumstances—
	(a)   the sale of a new home provided that it is registered with a warranty provider designated by the Secretary of State,
	(b)   the resale of a new home where the warranty cover remains in force,
	(c)   the transfer of ownership by a developer of a new home to another company prior to marketing the property to the public where the company assuming ownership is registered with a warranty provider designated by the Secretary of State.'.
	Amendment No. 93, in page 99, line 18 leave out clauses 145 to 149.
	Government amendments Nos. 86 and 44 to 46.
	Amendment No. 133, in clause 209, page 155, line 25, at end insert
	'or
	(d)   any regulations under Part 5.'.
	Amendment No. 131, in clause 226, page 163, line 17, leave out '153'.
	Amendment No. 132, in page 163, line 38, leave out '(other than section 153)'.

Keith Hill: I rise with a degree of embarrassment, Madam Deputy Speaker, because I have lost my place, and I feel that the House requires an explanation— [Interruption.] The Under-Secretary of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), has rescued me, and I am now in a position to commend Government new clause 13 to the House.
	The Government amendments are designed to ensure that the home information pack proposals are as effective as possible, without interfering more than is necessary with the rights of sellers, although I fear that some hon. Members think that the Bill already interferes excessively. However, I assure the House that part 5 of the Bill is absolutely necessary if we are to improve the home buying and selling process in England and Wales, which is currently shambolic.
	Clause 150 currently provides that the Secretary of State will identify the situations in which the use of information in the pack is restricted. New clause 13 replaces that with a provision allowing sellers themselves to identify conditions on the use and onward disclosure of information supplied in the pack. In practice, however, sellers and agents who have gone to the trouble and expense of compiling a pack are likely to want to use it to maximum effect by making it available to potential buyers without imposing conditions, unless, for example, they are a celebrity who wants to prevent the media from getting hold of it.
	Under new clause 13, sellers and their agents would still need an HIP and to provide a copy to trading standards officers on demand. Sellers and agents can already refuse to supply a copy of the HIP to any person to whom the seller is not prepared to sell or who does not appear to be a genuine buyer. New clause 13 will not add restrictions to access by potential buyers; it just allows conditions to be attached by the seller to the use and onward disclosure of information in the pack. We see no reason to qualify or restrict the conditions that may be imposed, and there seems little point in doing so, bearing in mind that the seller could simply refuse to supply a copy of the HIP on the grounds that they would not sell the property to the person in question.

Edward Davey: Will the Minister explain how the new clause will enable the seller or the seller's agent to identify a person who asks for a HIP?

Keith Hill: Again, the hon. Gentleman must forgive me, because I did not catch the entirety of his question. Will he repeat it?

Edward Davey: By all means. How will the new clause enable a seller or a seller's agent to be certain of the identity of the person to whom the HIP is being given? Part of the concern is that people—possibly journalists—who want a scoop on, for example, Posh and Becks, might go round estate agents asking for particulars. How will the new clause deal with that aspect of the problem?

Keith Hill: If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, we hope to come on to that exact point in later exchanges.
	Government amendment No. 86 removes clause 150. Government amendment No. 81 is a drafting amendment that ensures that clause 136 is consistent with the idea that the duties set out in clauses 137 to 139 continually apply while a person is the responsible person, and Government amendment No. 82 permits exceptions to that continual duty. For example, clause 138 only creates a legal duty in relation to a particular request, and the amendment ensures that clause 136 is consistent with that approach. Amendment No. 83 is needed to ensure that clause 138(2) is consistent with clause 149(5). As currently drafted, clause 138(2) requires a responsible person to supply copies of the documents that are in the HIP on the date that the request is made.
	Clause 149 gives a right to bring legal action for costs against the responsible person if the information that is supplied in the pack is not what is in the home information pack on the date the pack is supplied. It is important that the two duties match up and vital that buyers get the most up-to-date version of the pack.
	Clause 138 sets out some circumstances in which the responsible person may turn down a request for copies without breaching any duty. Amendment No. 84 makes it clear that the responsible person has 14 days to establish whether, on reasonable grounds, they are entitled to turn down a request.
	Amendment No. 85 is a drafting amendment that is consequential on new clause 13. Clause 138(8) provides that the period allowed to provide a copy of the pack is 14 days from the date on which the request is made. The amendment makes it clear that that is subject to any extension of that period arising where conditions have been imposed under new clause 13. Clause 138(8A) provides that the duty to provide a copy of the pack ceases when the property is taken off the market or sold before the end of the 14 days. Amendment No. 85 makes it clear that a person will not breach any duty if, for example, he fails to provide a copy of the pack when he has already agreed to sell his house to another person.

Robert Syms: This important part of the Bill remains controversial among Conservative Members and others, so I suspect that it will lead to a vote. If we catch your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker, we shall want to move amendment No. 88, which would make the provision of a home information pack voluntary, because, having listened to all the arguments in Committee, we are still unconvinced about the scheme's benefits. If it was such a good idea, the industry would adopt it anyway, but imposing it will add substantially to the costs faced by home buyers and may well slow the process down, not speed it up. We were told in Committee that the cost of a home information pack would be about £600, but the bodies to which I have spoken suggest that that would be a minimum amount and that the real cost would quickly move closer to £800 or £900—perhaps even £1,000. That would be a comparatively small cost for the owner of a £1 million property in Chelsea, but a substantial burden on the owner of a home worth £30,000 or £40,000 in the midlands or the north. The scheme will create real problems, especially in areas of low demand.

David Kidney: But does the hon. Gentleman agree that most of those costs are already incurred in today's market, the only difference being that the buyer pays them, not the seller?

Robert Syms: I agree that many of the costs are already imposed, but they usually fall due only when the house is sold, whereas the costs involved in this pack will be incurred when the house goes on the market. Although there is of course no guarantee that it will eventually sell, somebody with a house worth, say, £40,000 in an area of low demand will have to meet the cost at some point—possibly up front, as suppliers of the packs may demand in areas where they have less confidence that the home will be sold. The danger is that those who can ill afford it will have to pay those who have provided the information without the guarantee that they will eventually sell their home. That may be a very material feature when people decide whether they want to put their house on the market—or, indeed, to test the market by putting their house with an estate agent, as many people do in the current conditions. Now, people will be able to test the market only by incurring costs of £600, £700 or £800.

Bob Spink: Does my hon. Friend agree that his analysis, which I believe to be correct, leads to the conclusion that fewer people will put their houses on the market, which means that supply will be restricted, thus driving up house price inflation?

Robert Syms: There is a risk of that happening. Indeed, the Minister will need to reassure the House on a number of issues in regard to this project, including the shelf life of a home information pack. Most of the professional bodies to whom I have spoken believe that, following the process of producing the pack and the home condition report, its shelf life would probably be six months—certainly for the home condition report. If a house did not sell, there might therefore be further costs involved in updating aspects of the pack.
	We also heard extensively in Committee about the problem of the severe shortage of surveyors, with perhaps 9,000 to 10,000 being needed. Between now and 2006–07, when the scheme will be introduced, substantial efforts will have to be made by all the relevant professional bodies and by the building industry to produce the number of people necessary to undertake the surveys involved. We all get frustrated by the fact that transactions in the housing market sometimes do not proceed as rapidly as they should. I suspect that the answer is more to do with technology than with change, and I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney), who raised these issues in Committee. We had some good debates about how non-paper-based information could be used to speed up the housing market. My colleagues and I are not convinced that a home information pack is the answer.
	As I understand it, if someone goes into an estate agent, they will initially get the details of the property. If, having looked at them, they considered themselves a potential buyer, they would ask the estate agent if they could view the home information pack. Under new clause 13, which the Minister introduced, it would need to be supplied within 14 days, and would possibly be subject to a charge or to some kind of legal agreement or conditions, so that a degree of confidentiality could be obtained regarding the information.
	I presume that, as the person would still be only a potential buyer at that point, the costs incurred under the new clause would be the costs of printing off and sending the information, and that the full cost of producing a home information pack would be charged only when someone had actually undertaken to buy a property and signed a contract. I presume that the full cost would be met only at that point. So, when new clause 13 states that the
	"potential buyer may be required to pay a charge authorised by section 138(7)",
	I presume that that refers only to an administrative charge for supplying the information to potential buyers.
	Perhaps the Minister can tell the House what has been put down in the Bill as a reasonable charge. At the moment, estate agents provide a nice picture of the property and its details free. No doubt, if a prospective buyer were a little more serious and wanted to view the property, they would ask for the home information pack, and the issue of a charge would arise. Some estate agents might decide to accept that cost as part of their overheads because they wanted to sell the property. Indeed, some owners might decide to carry the cost of printing off and sending out the details because they were desperate to sell. However, under new clause 13, it looks as though an estate agent could levy a charge for the provision of this information.
	My concern is that estate agents could charge rather more substantial sums than is envisaged by the Government. No figure has been discussed in relation to the provision of this information to potential buyers, as opposed to the actual buyer. Will the Minister give the House an indication of what such a charge might be? Estate agents have to run their offices, pay their staff, and hold and print the information, and I can envisage some of them providing the information on a paper-based system and having to charge a potential buyer £30 to £40 for it. How will that impact on the way in which the market works?
	I would therefore like to hear more about new clause 13. In Committee, we did not really talk about the charge. We talked about the main buyer and the main overall costs. The Minister listed specific aspects of the home information pack and stated what he believed that the charge would be. As I said earlier, he also disputed that it would be more than £600. However, if estate agents or those selling homes are allowed to charge a fee purely for printing a document, putting it in a glossy brochure and sending it through the post—perhaps registered delivery if they do not want the information to be publicly available—the charge under new clause 13(2) could be substantial. How would that impact on the way in which the market works?
	I am sorry to say that the Minister's most persuasive and articulate arguments in Committee did not persuade my hon. Friends or me that the new clause was the best way forward. At the appropriate point, we may seek your permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, to put amendment No. 88 to the vote so that hon. Members can express how they feel. We believe in voluntary not compulsory procedures. If the market works and the pack is as big an asset as the Government believe, I am sure that the industry will pick it up as a voluntary option, which does not have to be imposed by central Government diktat.

Clive Betts: I want to speak about new clause 32, which would introduce a scheme to license estate agents. The home information pack is a major regulation issue and I must admit that when I first heard about it and we considered it in the Select Committee on the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, I was mildly sceptical about whether it would improve the process of selling and buying homes. Such is the power of the Minister's persuasive talents that I came round to the view that it is generally a good scheme and should be supported. I am sure that he will think about my persuasive talents when he decides to support new clause 32.
	The Government are committed to a major item of regulation that will clearly formulate the way in which houses are bought and sold in this country. As part of that process, solicitors will perform their traditional conveyancing role. Of course, they have to be qualified and they are regulated in a specific way. The compulsory home conditions survey that we are introducing is also subject to regulation and the inspectors who carry out the surveys must be qualified for the job. There is an issue about training, which the hon. Member for Poole (Mr. Syms) mentioned, and the Government must tackle that to get the scheme right.
	As public representatives, we have some duty to safeguard people from their worse follies. Two thirds of people buy a property without a proper home conditions survey. That is a bit silly and it is right for us to protect them from the mess into which they can get. That is one of the reasons for my support of the proposal for the home information pack.
	However, although a series of professionals engaged in the process will be subject to licensing, regulation and the need for qualifications, the group of individuals who put the pack together, formulate and produce it will be completely unregulated. Any individual can walk in off the street, rent a property on a short-term lease, then stick a notice outside stating, "We are Rip-off and Folly, local estate agents. Come and sell your house through us." They would be entitled, with no controls, to formulate and produce a home information pack, which is subject to legislation and regulation. That is a glaring anomaly. The set of individuals who have to bring together the whole regulated process and will probably be paid more than anyone else for their endeavours—some people may not always perceive them as endeavours—will remain unregulated.
	The BBC's "Brassed Off Britain" and Which?, the Consumers Association publication, have undertaken work to examine the current position. A survey was conducted into buying and selling homes in this country. It showed that 1.8 million homes are bought and sold every year and that fewer than half the people polled were satisfied with the service that they received from estate agents. That is probably not surprising. Over two thirds thought that estate agents frequently gave misleading information about their properties and 82 per cent. thought that all estate agents should be trained. It does not seem unreasonable to insist that those who do that job should be trained.
	People were very concerned that those who would do the home conditions survey should be trained. I think those who would produce the sellers pack should be trained as well, and that they should have a professional qualification. Two thirds thought that the Government should license estate agents. That view, I think, would be fairly well reflected among Members of the House if they were asked to give their opinion based on their own experience.
	I do not want to imply that every estate agent does a bad job, but we should go and talk to the better estate agents—the ones who have a reputation to think about—as they also would welcome a licensing arrangement, because it would lift the standard of their industry and bring a new respect to it. Such an arrangement would also mean that the rip-off merchants and the cowboys could not do a bad job and give the whole of estate agency a bad name. Many of the good estate agents would welcome my proposals.
	There is, of course, an ombudsman for estate agents. The problem there, however, is that only a third of estate agents belong to the scheme. While someone who is selling a home can decide to go to an estate agent who is a member of that scheme—I certainly recommend it—people who want to buy a particular home that they are interested in cannot choose to go to a member of the scheme because the agent for the property will already have been appointed by the seller. That is another flaw.
	In the meantime, the Minister could easily decide that all estate agents must become a member of the ombudsman scheme. That would be a step in the right direction, but it would not be perfect because, essentially, an ombudsman scheme is about sorting out problems after they have occurred. However, a proper system of regulating and licensing estates agents, and ensuring that they are trained, would try to deliver a better service from the beginning and prevent problems from occurring in the first place.

Simon Thomas: I want to make one point that I hope the hon. Gentleman accepts. It is not true that all estate agents are not trained or are not professionals in some way, shape or form. Many estate agents, particularly in rural areas, are chartered surveyors as well. Therefore, they have that other aspect to their work.
	I agree with the hon. Gentleman in this regard: if we are to have compulsory home information packs, the buyer and the seller need some assurance on the contents of those packs. Most people will still trust the estate agent to put the pack together, but if it contains a fault they will have no comeback on those estate agents, unless they belong to the scheme to which he has referred. He is on the right track there.

Clive Betts: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that point, with which I agree in general. Indeed, I had a phone call from the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors the other day, saying that it generally supports the licence scheme as well. It needs to give that professionalism and certainty to the service being delivered.
	I put it to the Minister that there is a difference now that we are to have the home information pack. The public will believe that, because the Government are insisting on the pack, it somehow has Government approval behind it. If the people who are formulating the pack and pulling it together are not necessarily trained—some may be, some may not be—not necessarily qualified; subject to no proper controls and no proper regulation; and not necessarily part of an ombudsman scheme, the Government could be the ones who get blamed in the end for the deficiencies of the service.

Alan Hurst: My hon. Friend may realise that estate agencies often contain within their partnership chartered surveyors, who may well be the same people who draw up the home survey report. There is an inherent conflict of interest from which the purchaser—now called the buyer—may well suffer.

Clive Betts: That is another fair point that needs to be sorted out. It shows again why we ought to have clear regulations laid down so that the public understand what is expected and required of the individuals who engage in this process on their behalf.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I declare an interest as a fellow of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors. Becoming a chartered surveyor involves a minimum of four years' training. In proposing a training scheme, will the hon. Gentleman give the House some idea of what training he thinks would be necessary and who would grant the qualification at the end of the process?

Clive Betts: No, not off the top of my head. I have deliberately left the new clause open so that Ministers can take it away and consider those issues with the people in the industry. I see a body being set up, perhaps by the industry, but under regulation. That is something for the Minister to come back on. I do not want to say at this stage that two or three years' training would be appropriate, but clearly some training, a qualification and a form of licensing are what I am arguing for.
	Finally, I understand that the Minister may be in a dilemma. I am sure that he is aware that when the public are polled and consulted on these issues, often, the only group of individuals who are seen to come lower down in their estimation than politicians are estate agents. He might be in danger of ensuring, at a stroke, greater public respect and support for the job of estate agency by lifting that group of individuals above his colleagues in the public esteem. In considering that issue, I am sure that the Minister will also have regard to the fact that if he introduced a scheme for licensing and training estate agents throughout the country, he would probably become the most popular individual politician in the country. I leave him with that thought.

Edward Davey: The hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Betts) is raising his status with his helpful speech and new clause. At this relatively late stage of the Bill, were the Government radically to reform part 5 and make a home information pack voluntary, but adopt the approach of the hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe, they could get a consensus in this House. It is agreed, not necessarily by every Member of the House but quite widely, that the estate agency profession needs regulation and training. The hon. Gentleman did not mention, but he might have done, that the National Association of Estate Agents is in favour of the profession being regulated, which might strike some people as odd, but the good estate agents are concerned to drive out the cowboys. What is interesting is that those same estate agents, who are looking to improve the quality of their profession, think that the compulsory home information pack would be a disaster, both for their profession and for the housing market.
	Unlike the hon. Gentleman, therefore, I was not convinced by the soothing words of the Minister in Committee. I want to spend some time explaining why the Liberal Democrats oppose the Government's proposal to introduce compulsory regulation of the buying and selling of homes.
	I shall start by replying to the Minister's introduction of new clause 13. It is doubtlessly a step forward in terms of ensuring that the seller can ensure that a potential buyer does not disclose information. As I sought to indicate, however, it has not gone far enough. There are still concerns that people who roll up claiming to be potential buyers could have nefarious motives. Clause 138(4)(c) states that the duty of producing a home information pack does not apply if the "responsible person", the estate agent,
	"believes on reasonable grounds that the person making the request . . . is not a person to whom the seller is likely to be prepared to sell the property."
	The Minister might say that that provision guards against the concern that an agent might have that the home information pack will be given to someone from the criminal fraternity, for example. I return to the point that I made in an intervention, however: how will the "responsible person" be able to identify these people? We are being given a process through regulation whereby the criminal fraternity, journalists and others—they are not synonymous—will be able to access the property details of individuals, about which I am very concerned.

Alan Hurst: I declare an interest as a member of the country's most regulated profession, as I am a solicitor in the firm of Law, Hurst and Taylor. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman makes too strong a point. At present, anybody can walk into an estate agent's office and receive sale particulars and sometimes a glossy brochure. Were film stars or other people of note to offer their properties for sale, all the information that the journalist, and probably the criminal, could want is already available without any check whatever from high street agents.

Edward Davey: I agree with the Law Society, which is worried that the home information packs may contain much more information than estate agents' particulars—details of burglar alarms, for example. Those certainly do not appear in the information provided by estate agents.
	The main issue is whether the packs should be compulsory or voluntary. Our amendments Nos. 110 and 111 would have an effect similar to that of amendment No. 88, tabled by the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes), which we shall support if it is pressed to a vote. They seek to make the provision of packs voluntary. We think that if the content of the packs is set out in law so that everyone knows what will be in them, they may well prove helpful to those buying and selling property, so we should let the market decide. By all means let sellers offer the packs as an added competitive advantage to attract potential buyers, but let us not impose them on the market. That might load extra costs on to people who might then be dissuaded from putting their properties on the market, either because they are short of a few readies or because they are merely speculatively testing the market, having seen a property that they liked at the weekend. Making the packs compulsory could freeze the market.
	I wonder whether Professor Barker was asked to look at the new clause. She has produced an important piece of work about housing supply and restrictions on its improvement. Many people, not just in the House but outside, think that this new regulation will make the situation much worse. I bet Professor Barker would have been very alarmed if it had been brought to her attention.

Sydney Chapman: I entirely agree with what the hon. Gentleman is saying. Given that the provision represents a radical departure from the present arrangements governing the buying and selling of homes, would it not be wise for the Government to introduce it as a voluntary measure? If it proves to be as much of a success as its proponents claim, it can always be made compulsory later.

Edward Davey: As the hon. Gentleman may know, the Law Society has its own transaction scheme, which the Minister praised in Committee. It was designed to streamline and speed up the collecting of information for the buyer, and to help avoid gazumping and gazundering. Some 75 per cent. of buyers have signed up to it, on a voluntary basis. It excludes the search, because people declined to pay for it upfront. The experiment has proved popular, but the Government are ignoring the experience of the scheme by seeking to force detailed information on people.
	Amendment No. 109 seeks to ensure that a seller who is marketing his own property need not produce a home information pack. We feel that in the age of the internet, people should be encouraged to use the technology to market their own properties if they so choose, and should be exempt from regulation of this kind. I do not see why the Government are against that sort of DIY home selling, which would be a great competitive spur to this particular market.
	New clause 27 seeks to enable someone to market their home when they have an incomplete pack in circumstances in which reasonable efforts have been made to obtain the missing information. That is necessary because the seller will be reliant on other bodies and organisations to access information for the home information pack. For example, they might need to obtain service charge information from a landlord or managing agent. What will happen if that landlord or agent delays, imposes unreasonable charges or fails to furnish invoices or receipts for payments made for previous service charges, which people often like to see when they purchase a property? If a seller has made reasonable attempts to put together a home information pack but has been thwarted by people whom they cannot control, it seems unreasonable to prevent them from going ahead and marketing their property. I hope that the Minister can give a full answer to the proposition in new clause 27.
	Amendment No. 113 takes up a point already made. We want to make sure that the home inspectors who produce the report are independent. There is a real concern that estate agents, mortgage lenders, building fabric warranty providers and financial product providers will all come together in a vertical integration of the market in which the conflicts of interest will be many and damaging to the consumer interest. The Government are arguing that the measure favours the consumer, but if those sorts of company come together, with home inspectors being part of estate agent firms or financial institutions, consumers will seriously lose out. There are some real vested interests who support this new measure, and if the Government were really standing up for consumers they would understand that, and stop that new cartel in its tracks before it formed.
	Amendment No. 114 seeks to amend clause 144 to ensure that the people who provide the packs have adequate indemnity insurance. The Government have been crossing their fingers and hoping that the people who provide the packs will be able to get professional indemnity insurance, although they have been told by the market that that will be very expensive and might exclude many people. That could make the shortage in the supply of people able to carry out inspections even worse. I hope that the Minister will give due consideration to amendment No. 114.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Amendment No. 114 is the most crucial of the lot, because if the home condition inspectors do not have professional indemnity insurance, no reliance at all will be able to be placed on their inspection reports. When one considers the money involved in buying or selling a house, one realises that the possibility of those inspectors' missing some vital defect in a property could involve many thousands of pounds. If that process is not properly insured, the whole system will fall into disrepute.
	I do not see how an insurance company will be able to provide that cover unless the inspectors are properly trained and qualified, a point made by the hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Betts). That aspect needs careful thought before the Government introduce home condition reports.

Edward Davey: I am grateful for that point, which the hon. Gentleman made very well. It brings me to amendment No. 115, which is along similar lines. It seeks to allow sellers, buyers and lenders to bring proceedings where they have relied on information contained in the home condition report that then proves incorrect. It is important that that aspect be clarified. If the Government are doing consumers a service—an argument that I do not really accept—they need to make sure that the reports work. That means not just that inspectors should have professional indemnity insurance behind them, but that if the reports prove incorrect, the consumer knows that they can go to law, without any problems, and seek redress. I hope that amendment No. 115 will be accepted.
	Amendment No. 115 and many of the others that I have tabled seek to make a dreadful proposal slightly better, so I hope that even at this late stage, the Government will take a different tack. I hope that they will support amendment No. 88, support the amendments that my party has tabled, support the new clause of the hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe, but drop the absurd, outrageous, costly and damaging proposal to make home information packs compulsory.

David Kidney: Fundamentally, the Government seek to make the seller responsible for having all the information needed for the transaction at the beginning, rather than the buyer collecting it in dribs and drabs during the transaction itself, as happens now. We are talking about 1.8 million transactions a year, nearly two thirds of which are in chains, with an average of five transactions per chain. So in a voluntary system, just one non-participant in a chain prevents everybody from benefiting from the Government's scheme. Because of our reliance on such chains under the current system, there is a 33 per cent. transaction failure rate, which is extremely wasteful.
	We have heard many times about Maria Coleman, the Bristol estate agent who has a voluntary scheme called "Open Book", through which everything is prepared by the seller at the beginning of the transaction. Her hugely successful voluntary scheme has reduced the failed transaction rate from 33 per cent. to just 3 per cent. It has been running for some seven years, so perhaps Conservative Members can explain to me why there has not been a landslide take-up of such schemes. In fact, Maria Coleman has so many problems with others not following the scheme that she supports compulsion.

Andrew Selous: As I recall, it was pointed out in Committee that Maria Coleman's scheme provides her with significant additional fee income. Does the hon. Gentleman not think that vested professional interests are involved, in order to boost their earnings?

David Kidney: The extra money is of course for the inspectors. However, the Government's scheme makes provision for inspectors, so that is not a consideration. What is a consideration is that under the current system, several buyers incur the same costs for one property, yet only one will buy it—again, that is wasteful—whereas one seller would incur the costs for everyone. I am sure that the market will develop systems to enable the seller to put off repayment of the costs until the transaction has concluded, as happens with the voluntary scheme.
	As the hon. Member for Poole (Mr. Syms) rightly said, there are two problems: shelf life and the sale not proceeding. Here, the Government have clearly decided to grit their teeth and see things through. I am glad that the hon. Gentleman mentioned my discussion in Committee of electronic home information packs, which will cut costs and time yet further. I certainly support the registration of estate agents to make sure that they perform their part of the scheme competently.
	At the moment, only one in five buyers purchases a house—at huge expense; indeed, it is the greatest investment of their lives—with a surveyor's report that is equivalent to, or better than, a home buyer's report and valuation. Four out of five do not obtain a report of that standard. Most buyers purchasing with a mortgage rely instead on the lender's survey and report. There are three levels of survey: a basic valuation of a property; a home buyer's report and valuation; and a full structural report. Some 80 to 90 per cent. of buyers with a mortgage rely on a basic valuation. They are paying, so they choose the cheapest.
	Someone else obtains the report, but it is the buyers who rely on it. It is worth pointing out that when things go wrong with the report, buyers sue the valuers. That will help to reassure hon. Members that under the Government's scheme, there will be a remedy. In fact, a few lenders refuse to disclose the report in order to avoid litigation risk to themselves and their valuers. Thus some people pay for the basic valuation report, do not get to see it, but carry on and buy their homes. Basic valuation reports clearly involve shorter time inspections and are for a different purpose; they are not what buyers require when making such a huge investment. Most lenders' valuers carry out physical inspections in making those reports, but in recent years there have been a few examples of fast-tracking, which some call desk-top evaluations or drive-by evaluations. Such practices are much more common in the United States of America.
	There are legitimate concerns about the number of inspectors and their training, the presence of their indemnity insurance, and the cost of the infrastructure and implementation plan, but those are all practicalities. They must be got right, but they do not amount to objections to the principles, which concern transparency, certainty, consumer protection and consumer satisfaction.
	A Consumers Association survey of more than 1,000 adults at the end of last year found that 82 per cent. thought that home information packs would be "very useful" and 13 per cent. "fairly useful"—95 per cent. in total. The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister report on "Piloting the Home Condition Report", published in February this year, found that the majority of those taking part—sellers, buyers, estate agents, conveyancers and inspectors—liked the idea of a home condition report and found it easy to understand. The report said:
	"Most sellers and buyers considered the report to be accurate and independent."
	It really is a good scheme, which has had all the right preparations and a long lead-in time, as the Minister has announced. The scheme will be a success.

Sydney Chapman: I shall be brief, as much of what I wanted to say has already been covered by my hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Mr. Syms) and, indeed, by the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey).
	The crucial question is whether the proposal for home improvement packs will streamline the buying and selling of a home, or be just an additional bureaucratic cost. As my hon. Friend explained, the cost is likely to be in the order of £600 and perhaps more. I am willing to take an even bet with anyone that if it were £600 in the first year, it would increase by 50 per cent. within five years. That is an aside, but if we are to introduce a radically new proposal, we must think about costs.
	I want to raise two issues. First, some people in the market need to sell their home quickly because an emergency has occurred. Will the new scheme help to deal with that problem? Secondly, as my hon. Friend the Member for Poole mentioned, there are problems with houses of very low value. We tend to think, quite rightly, that the cost of buying is going up and up. I know that in the three most northern regions in England, the average cost of a house has now hit the six-figure barrier—more than £100,000. The average cost of a home in London, though, is more than £250,000. There is no problem there. The problem arises generally in parts of the north where housing is very cheap because, for one reason or another, it is virtually unsellable. Various Government amendments and new clauses will change the Bill, but I hope that the scheme that results will bear in mind that particular problem.
	All in all, it is a radically new proposal and genuine arguments exist on both sides of the issue. It would be a foolish person who denied that some of the arguments for introducing HIPs were compelling, but, equally, there are opposing arguments. I am bound to say, as an honorary member of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors—I am not a fellow and I have no financial interest—that we should err on the cautious side and introduce the scheme on a voluntary basis first. If it proved successful, it could then be extended.

Keith Hill: I regret having to rise to speak when I know that other hon. Members want to enter the debate, but it is wholly appropriate that I respond to points raised in the debate so far.
	I shall start by responding to two specific questions. The hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) intervened on my speech to ask how new clause 13 would enable the seller or agent to be certain of the identity of a person to whom a pack was given. The precise answer is that it would not. The position will remain as at present. If the seller is concerned, conditions can be attached, but our conviction is that most sellers will not be concerned. A propos the same new clause, the hon. Member for Poole (Mr. Syms) asked what the charge for a copy of the pack covers, and the answer is, the cost of the copy and the documents requested.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney)—also known as my guru—spoke eloquently on this subject. I suspect that we shall hear from him again, and those of us who are early-morning listeners to Radio 4 heard him before 7 o'clock this morning.
	I want to deal with those amendments that would introduce a voluntary home information pack system, rather than the compulsory system that is proposed. I must resist them. As I have said repeatedly, a voluntary HIP system would essentially continue the shambolic mess that we have at present. It would allow sellers to avoid the duties by ensuring that the marketing material made it clear that the property was being sold without a pack. Going down that road would lead us to the worst of all worlds.
	HIPs need to be compulsory to ensure that everyone benefits from them. We are in no doubt about that: voluntary arrangements simply would not work. It is inevitable that, given the choice, some sellers—perhaps a measurable proportion—would choose to market their homes without an HIP. They might do that in an attempt to avoid costs, or in the hope that they might avoid having to disclose information, for example about a problem with the condition of the property that an HIP would identify. That would be unfair to buyers who had provided a pack for their own sale.
	More harmfully, the amendments would result in an unsatisfactory two-track process, in which sales without packs would slow down connected sales with packs. In a chain, that would cancel out the very benefits that the Bill seeks to achieve. We would end up with a system that fostered waste, uncertainty and delay—the very opposite of the Government's intentions. There is no scope for relaxing the mandatory nature of the duties if we want to improve the efficiency of the housing market and protect the interests of all home buyers and sellers.
	I turn to new clause 32, moved—also very eloquently—by my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Betts). He got in very early with the joke about politicians versus estate agents that will have been in the front of hon. Members' minds when considering this matter.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Will the Minister give way?

Keith Hill: No. I will not give way to the hon. Gentleman because, in due course and as rapidly as possible, I want to deal with a point that he raised in the debate.
	The licensing of estate agents is, quite rightly, of considerable interest. This debate is very timely, following the recent report from the Office of Fair Trading, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe alluded, and the even more recent publications by Which? and the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors.
	The issues debated today in relation to new clause 32 will be of even greater significance when HIPs are introduced, as many hon. Members observed. Estate agents will have a pivotal role in delivering HIPs to their seller clients and to the home-buying public. HIPs will cover a range of documents and information that are currently outside the marketing role that agents perform. That means that estate agents will need to be more professional and have a better knowledge and understanding of all aspects of the process of buying and selling homes. It is essential to the smooth and successful introduction of HIPs that estate agents rise to this challenge, as the RICS and the National Association of Estate Agents recognise.
	I therefore sympathise with the intentions behind new clause 32, but hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe will appreciate that I am unable to accept it.
	The OFT has published a market study report on estate agents that includes recommendations about the future regulation of the industry. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry is considering the report's recommendations and aims to publish a response within 90 days. Ministers and officials at the Department of Trade and Industry are meeting estate agents' representative groups, consumer groups and other interested parties to help inform the Government response. I assure my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe that my Department is very much involved with this process. I hope that he will be prepared to await the Government's response to the OFT report. In the light of that, I invite him to withdraw his new clause.
	Amendment No. 114 was referred to by the hon. Members for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas) and for Kingston and Surbiton, and by my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe. The hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) said that it was the most crucial amendment of the lot.
	It would specify that a home inspector's indemnity insurance is "adequate and appropriate". The certification scheme will determine a suitable level of cover. The criteria against which the Secretary of State will approve the certification scheme, or schemes, will ensure that that issue will be properly addressed, taking into account the prevailing conditions at the time.
	Clause 14(5) provides that the Secretary of State cannot approve a certification scheme unless the members of the scheme have in force suitable indemnity insurance. The amendment in question would substitute "adequate and appropriate" for "suitable". It goes without saying that the Secretary of State would not approve a scheme if the insurance provisions were not "adequate and appropriate". It is not necessary to spell that out in the Bill.
	Amendment No. 115, tabled by the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton, would specify in the Bill that sellers, buyers and lenders can bring proceedings in respect of a home condition report on which they had relied. That is unnecessary, as those rights will be provided for. Clause 143(8) clearly signposts that intention. In relation to prescribed documents, that clause enables the Secretary of State to impose a requirement that three specified categories of person be able to enforce the terms of the contract under which the document is prepared. That is intended to ensure that buyers and lenders, as well as sellers, can rely on the contents of the pack, including the home condition report.
	It being three and three quarter hours after the commencement of proceedings on the programme motion, Madam Deputy Speaker put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair, pursuant to Order [this day].
	Question agreed to.
	Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill
	Madam Deputy Speaker then proceeded to put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that hour.

Clause 137
	 — 
	Duty to have a home information pack

Amendment proposed: No. 88, in page 94, line 21, leave out from beginning to "have" and insert—
	"As a matter of voluntary discretion, a person may"—[Mr. Syms.]
	Question put, That the amendment be made:—
	The House divided: Ayes 177, Noes 290.

Question accordingly negatived.

Clause 136
	 — 
	Application of sections 137 to 139

Amendments made: No. 81, in page 94, line 17, at end insert 'until his responsibility ceases'.
	No. 82, in page 94, line 18, leave out subsection (2) and insert—
	'(2)   Each of those duties is subject to any exception relating to that duty which is provided for in those sections.
	(3)   The duty under section 138(1) is also subject to any condition imposed under section (Section 138: imposition of conditions).'—[Paul Clark.]

Clause 138
	 — 
	Duty to provide copy of home information pack on request

Amendments made: No. 83, in page 94, line 39, leave out 'request is made' and insert 'document is provided'.
	No. 84, in page 95, line 5, leave out 'when the request is made' and insert
	'before the end of the permitted period'.
	No. 85, in page 95, line 28, leave out from 'document' to end of line 33 and insert—
	'(8)   The permitted period for the purposes of this section is (subject to section (Section 138: imposition of conditions)(5)) the period of 14 days beginning with the day on which the request is made.
	(8A)   If the responsible person ceases to be responsible for marketing the property before the end of the permitted period (whether because the property has been taken off the market or sold or for any other reason), he ceases to be under any duty to comply with the request.'.—[Paul Clark.]

Clause 150
	 — 
	Restrictions on disclosure or use of home information pack

Amendment made: No. 86, in page 101, line 12, leave out Clause 150.—[Paul Clark.]

Clause 154
	 — 
	Interpretation Of Part 5

Amendments made: No. 44, in page 103, line 4, after 'regarded' insert
	'for the purposes of this Part'.
	No. 45, in page 103, line 8, after 'is' insert 'only'.
	No. 46, in page 103, line 9, leave out '(and only if)'.—[Paul Clark.]

Oliver Heald: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Earlier, in points of order, the Foreign Secretary promised further to clarify his remarks about Sir Jeremy Greenstock not receiving the Red Cross report. Yesterday, of course, the Defence Secretary said that he had done so. The Foreign Secretary said that he would come to the House at either 4 o'clock or 7 o'clock to do so. Have you had any firm indication that he will definitely come here at 7 o'clock to make an oral statement clarifying those remarks?

Madam Deputy Speaker: I am aware of the right hon. Gentleman's comments, but I am not aware, and have had no message, that a Minister will come to the House. I am sure, however, that the hon. Gentleman appreciates that that is not strictly a point of order for the Chair but a matter for Ministers to decide.

New Clause 8
	 — 
	Exceptions to the right to buy: determination whether exception for dwelling-house suitable for elderly persons applies

'(1)   In Schedule 5 to the Housing Act 1985 (c.68) (exceptions to the right to buy) paragraph 11 (single dwelling-house particularly suitable for elderly persons) is amended as follows.
	(2)   In sub-paragraph (4) (questions arising under paragraph 11 to be determined by the Secretary of State), for "the Secretary of State" (in both places) substitute "the appropriate tribunal or authority".
	(3)   After sub-paragraph (5) insert—
	   "(5A)   In this paragraph "the appropriate tribunal or authority" means—
	(a)   in relation to England, a residential property tribunal; and
	(b)   in relation to Wales, the Secretary of State.
	(5B)   Section 191 of the Housing Act 2004 (appeals to Lands Tribunal) does not apply to any decision of a residential property tribunal under this paragraph."
	(4)   Subsections (5) and (6) apply to any application under paragraph 11(4) in respect of a dwelling-house in England which—
	(a)   has been made to the Secretary of State before the day on which this section comes into force, and
	(b)   has not been determined by him before that day.
	(5)   If the application was made more than 28 days before that day, it is to be determined by the Secretary of State as if the amendments made by this section had not come into force.
	(6)   Otherwise—
	(a)   the application is to be determined by a residential property tribunal, and
	(b)   the Secretary of State must make all such arrangements as he considers necessary for the purpose of, or in connection with, enabling it to be so determined.'.—[Yvette Cooper.]
	Brought up, and read the First time.

Yvette Cooper: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Madam Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Government new clause 9—Right to buy: claim terminated by demolition notice.
	Government new clause 10—Landlord's notice to complete.
	Government new clause 11—Right to buy: suspension by court order.
	Government new clause 12—Right of assured tenant to acquire dwelling not affected by collective enfranchisement.
	New clause 18—Market Plan for right to buy sales—
	'(1)   To monitor sales resulting from right to buy, local authorities will be required to formulate and publish publicly a yearly marketing plan for right to buy sales.
	(2)   The marketing plan will include:
	(a)   figures on the number of properties sold through the right to buy scheme in the last 12 months;
	(b)   a target figure for the number of properties to be sold through the right to buy scheme in the coming 12 months;
	(c)   plans for how to achieve (b).'.
	Government amendments Nos. 70 and 71.
	Amendment No. 116, in page 106, line 18, leave out '18', and insert '36'.
	Amendment No. 117, in page 106, line 21, leave out '18', and insert '36'.
	Amendment No. 94, in page 108, line 12, at end insert—
	'16   The Right to Buy does not apply in a rural area if the area has been exempted by regulations made by the Secretary of State.'.
	Government amendments Nos. 72 to 74 and 26.

Yvette Cooper: I shall confine my remarks to the Government amendments and new clauses.
	Paragraph 11 of schedule 5 to the Housing Act 1985 provides that a landlord may deny tenants the right to buy if the home is particularly suitable for occupation by elderly people. It also provides that tenants may appeal to the Secretary of State if they are denied the right to buy on those grounds. The number of such appeals has risen in recent years to more than 400 in 2003, with 20 to 25 per cent. being successful, enabling the tenants to buy their homes, usually because all the relevant factors have not been taken into account or because local circumstances have changed. To help landlords and tenants, we will shortly consult stakeholders on ways of clarifying and improving the guidance issued in 1993.
	New clause 8 transfers the jurisdiction for determining appeals of this kind by tenants living in England from the Secretary of State to a residential property tribunal. That will make no substantive difference to the determination of appeals. We do not propose to change the statutory rules in paragraph 11 that determine whether a property is particularly suitable for occupation by elderly persons. Determinations by a residential property tribunal will be subject to judicial review, as are those of the Secretary of State at present. That will have the benefit of making the process more transparent and bringing together housing and related appeals and determinations under a single jurisdiction, and will over time afford opportunities for greater efficiency. The National Assembly for Wales will assess the position there independently.
	On Government new clause 9 and Government amendment No. 71, there has been concern in local communities and in the House about people speculating on regeneration and demolition projects and exercising the right to buy purely to make a profit out of compulsory purchase orders, increasing the cost of regeneration and demolition schemes and also threatening their viability. Clause 158 adds to the exceptions that apply to the right to buy under schedule 5 of the Housing Act 1985 the provision that the right to buy "does not arise" where a demolition notice is in force stating that the landlord intends to demolish the property during the next 18 months. That means that no new claim for the right to buy can be made in relation to such properties. The aim is to address an existing loophole.
	It has been suggested that, as worded, the clause could fail in its effect, because an advertisement placed by a landlord to the effect that he intended to demolish a building could persuade a tenant to apply for the right to buy before any demolition notice had been served. The wording in clause 158 does not make it sufficiently clear that existing claims as well as future claims should be covered. We do not want to create a mad race between people trying to get in a right to buy application and the serving of a demolition notice just to address the loophole. New clause 9 therefore makes it clear that a demolition notice properly served in accordance with the requirements of clause 158 will bring to an end any outstanding right to buy application in respect of the property in question.
	We recognise that tenants may have put in right-to-buy applications at a much earlier stage in good faith, believing that they would proceed, and may incur fees and professional costs and expenses. The new clause therefore also provides for compensation to be paid in respect of any such expenditure that has been reasonably incurred in respect of a right-to-buy claim established before a demolition notice comes into force. Amendment No. 71 amends clause 158 so that a demolition notice will have to explain the right to compensation and how it may be exercised.
	Government new clause 10 tackles another form of exploitation of the right to buy rules by companies and tenants. Under the Housing Act 1985, landlords may impose a timetable on tenants who are perceived to be delaying the purchase of their homes under the right-to-buy scheme. A landlord may serve a first notice to complete under section 140 of the Act, and then a second notice to complete and subsequent requirements. If the tenant does not comply with these notices, the right-to-buy application is deemed to have been withdrawn, but only after a minimum of 16 months can any sanction be imposed upon the tenant. If there are other matters outstanding—perhaps a dispute about the value of the property—it can be delayed further.
	That can mean that, in a rising property market, the longer a tenant waits, the less he will pay for the property in real terms. The opposite, however, is true for the landlord, who has to sell the property at a price that is increasingly lower than its market value at the time of completion, and has to incur the expense of chasing a tenant who is delaying matters deliberately. In exceptional cases, that has allowed tenants, by reselling quickly, to make a substantial profit even after repaying some or all of their right-to-buy discount. By contrast, section 153A of the Housing Act 1985 allows a tenant to take action against a slow landlord much more swiftly. Tenants have at least 16 months to complete their purchase, while landlords face a financial penalty if they delay the process for more than one month. The new clause attempts to shift the balance so that, instead of having to wait for at least 12 months, a landlord can serve a first notice to complete after three months, if they wish. It still gives the tenant more time than the landlord, it brings the total time in line with the private sector and it addresses a loophole that people have exploited.
	Government new clause 11 gives the landlord of secure tenants a further weapon by which to tackle antisocial behaviour. In some instances, the right-to-buy scheme gives tenants who behave antisocially a means of escaping the consequences of their behaviour by purchasing their home. In such cases, the landlord cannot use the same measures over the tenant and the property, which is clearly an unintended consequence.
	New clause 11 enables landlords of secure tenants to seek an order suspending the right to buy for a specified period in respect of the tenancy on the ground of antisocial behaviour. The court may grant a suspension order only if it is satisfied that the tenant or a person residing in or visiting the property has engaged in, or threatened to engage in, antisocial behaviour, and that it is reasonable to make the order. A suspension order will end any existing applications and prevent any new applications from being made during the period specified by the court, but it will not impact on the accumulation of discount.
	Government amendments Nos. 72 and 73 further strengthen the measures to combat antisocial behaviour by allowing landlords not to complete a right-to-buy claim if an order to suspend it is pending. Government amendment No. 74 contains a provision similar to that in clause 167 that allows right-to-buy tenants to apply for the right to acquire or the preserved right to buy, which means that their landlords can also access the information that they require to carry out their functions under clause 166.
	Government new clause 12 seeks to remedy an unintended consequence of leasehold legislation that has only just come to light. Under the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993, qualifying tenants of flats were given rights to purchase the freehold collectively, with a mandatory leaseback to the housing association of remaining rented flats. The unintended consequence is that RSL assured tenants stand to lose their statutory right to acquire their rented home if others in a block of flats have exercised their right to enfranchisement. So far, no cases in which a tenant has lost their right to acquire their rented property have come to our attention, but the Housing Corporation notified us about the problem, and, because the change is recent and we anticipate future cases, we think it right to act now.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: New clauses 8 to 10 restrict a person's right to buy. What steps will be taken to notify people who fall within those new clauses that their rights are being restricted? The matter is clearly complicated, and, as with other legislation on the Rent Acts, I hope that any notice sent to tenants will include a bold warning stating that their rights are being restricted and that if they have any doubts about the meaning of the notice they should consult a citizens advice bureau.

Yvette Cooper: New clause 8 does not restrict the right to buy. The provisions in new clause 9 refer to demolition notices, which must explain the right to compensation. They require that accurate information be given to tenants and I reassure the hon. Gentleman that we expect appropriate information to be given to tenants in all such cases. At a later stage, I will be happy further to discuss with him exactly what kinds of information will be available for tenants under each of those clauses. As he rightly says, the matter is complex because each new clause has a different objective, and some of them—for example, new clause 12—protect the right to acquire or the right to buy.

Simon Thomas: The new clauses that relate to antisocial behaviour and the right to buy are obviously crucial to the Government's antisocial behaviour strategies. In light of the Westminster council homes scandal, can the Minister assure us that the safeguards will be sufficient to prevent disreputable local authorities from socially engineering the tenants who buy properties in particular areas? In that regard, what sort of evidence would be needed to suspend the right to buy in a court case—is it a matter of civil proof or of criminal proof?

Yvette Cooper: The hon. Gentleman is right to say that we need to prevent terrible behaviour of the kind that took place in Westminster. We are trying to safeguard the rights of local communities who are struggling with antisocial behaviour. Under the new clause, landlords will need to seek an order to suspend on the ground of antisocial behaviour, for a specified period, the right to buy in respect of the tenancy. The landlord will not be able to do that arbitrarily, but will need to go to court and the court will grant a suspension order only if it is satisfied that antisocial or threatening behaviour is taking place and that the request is reasonable. The court will need to take a series of factors into account, including whether it is desirable for the property to be managed by the landlord during the suspension period.
	Some of the other amendments are about suspending the right to buy, or allowing landlords not to complete the right to buy, if other antisocial behaviour measures are already being pursued. Through the new clause, we are trying to ensure that the right to buy does not become a get-out clause that allows antisocial tenants to subvert the other measures that have been introduced to tackle antisocial behaviour. By stipulating that the decision is for the courts, not for local authorities, we have taken care to ensure that, in situations where, in effect, a tenant's property rights are at stake, a fair process is gone through in achieving our aim of dealing with antisocial behaviour.

Jim Knight: May I press my hon. Friend on the question that the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas) asked about the burden of proof in such cases? Although I strongly support the idea that people who are given the right to buy must be responsible tenants and that we should suspend that right if they are being irresponsible through antisocial behaviour, I also believe that the burden of proof should be the same as it is for antisocial behaviour orders—that is, civil, not criminal.

Yvette Cooper: I can assure my hon. Friend that in such circumstances the right to buy will be suspended only for a specified period. We are not trying arbitrarily to impose an unfair penalty, but to give local authorities more tools to deal with antisocial behaviour. The new clause is very much in line with our approach towards antisocial behaviour throughout the Bill, which is to say that we need to give landlords more opportunities to address the problem while ensuring that people's rights are properly protected, that they get a fair hearing and that they are treated reasonably in the circumstances. That is why the role of the court is an important safeguard.
	I turn to amendment No. 70. Under section 119 of the Housing Act 1985, a secure tenant does not qualify for the right to buy until they have spent two years as a public sector tenant. Clause 157 extends that qualifying period to five years. It has been suggested that that will disadvantage tenants who take up a new social tenancy, whether it be a secure tenancy or an assured tenancy—for example, when they move from one social housing property to another. We do not intend to penalise existing social tenants who take up new social tenancies by making them wait longer for the right to buy. This minor and technical amendment is designed to avoid such a situation arising and to ensure that tenancies that began before the day on which clause 157 comes into effect will still be subject to the present two-year qualifying period.
	I ask the House to support the Government new clauses and amendments.

John Hayes: We now move to the part of the Bill that deals with the right to buy, a subject that was aired in Committee and which, appropriately, we want to say a few words about today. I particularly want to speak to new clause 18, which is intended to provide a shot in the arm for the important principle of the right to buy. The whole House will be familiar with the famous words of Benjamin Disraeli, when he said that the Conservative party was
	"only in its proper position when it represents popular principles. Then it is truly irresistible . . . It necessarily depends upon enlarged sympathies and noble aspirations".
	There can be no more noble an aspiration than the desire to own one's home and the right to buy has played an important part in the fulfilment of that aspiration since it was introduced.
	In preparing for this debate, I glanced at the figures for right-to-buy sales since 1980, and I was delighted to learn that around 1.6 million properties have been sold under the scheme. None of that would have taken place without the energy and commitment of the Conservative Government who introduced that important legislation.

Karen Buck: rose—

John Hayes: I will give way to the hon. Lady in a moment, but before I do, perhaps I should say that, although she might be a noble exception, most of those on the Labour Benches are typically either reluctant converts to the cause of the right to buy, or nakedly hostile to it. Perhaps she will tell me which she is.

Karen Buck: I was prompted by the hon. Gentleman's statement that there is no nobler aim than that of encouraging home ownership. Will he perhaps revise that opinion and say that we should instead aspire to ensuring a decent home for all? His party's policy comes into conflict with that more noble objective in that it has never addressed the fact that the right to buy can and does conflict with the objective of providing homes for all, in high-demand areas. Will he say something about the unmet housing needs that have been created in part by the pressure from the right to buy?

John Hayes: Home ownership is a noble aspiration not simply because it is a matter of acquiring a piece of property. The home is evocative of security, warmth, certainty and stability. It is the place to which we all return at the end of the day, so one should not be dismissive of the aspiration to own a home. However, the hon. Lady makes a good point when she says that it is important to have a decent social housing stock. That is why I know that she will join me in condemning this Government for their appalling record on social house building. This Government have built only about half the number of social houses that the last Conservative Government built.
	The hon. Lady is also right to say that the measures in the Bill do little to address either my concerns about the pace of the right to buy or her more fundamental concerns about the principle itself. She is right that we need a balanced housing programme and that every Briton deserves the right to live in a warm, secure, stable home that is fit for its purpose and part of a strong and sustainable community. I agree with her entirely on that, but I do not believe that such aspirations are incompatible with the right-to-buy policy.

Andrew Love: rose—

Jim Knight: rose—

John Hayes: I will give way, although I do not want to be diverted down a path that you will not let me follow, Mr. Deputy Speaker. However, I am trying, as ever, to be generous to Labour Members.

Andrew Love: The hon. Gentleman did not actually answer the question put to him by my hon. Friend the Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North (Ms Buck). Let me ask him a much simpler one: is it still the Opposition's policy to extend the right to buy to the registered social landlord sector, and what implications does he think that that would have for affordable accommodation?

John Hayes: I tell the hon. Member for Edmonton (Mr. Love) unequivocally that it is our intention to maintain the policy. There has been no party policy change on the right to buy, but it is important to consider other ways in which to provide high quality social housing. It is also important to create a more fluid system, whereby people move more easily from rented to market housing. One of the problems with the right to buy is that many long-standing council tenants become the long-standing owners of the properties that they purchase and do not move to market housing. That has diminished local authorities' housing stock. That was a fair point, which both the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North (Ms Buck) made.
	It is not beyond the wit of man to create an environment where people can aspire to ownership and in which a more fluid market can exist. The hon. Gentleman will know about the possibility of transferable discounts, which the previous Government introduced and the current Government maintain. They allow people to fulfil their aspiration to become home owners and lead to a more fluid market. We are disappointed that the Bill gives that no shot in the arm.
	From memory, there were approximately 897 cases of people taking up the opportunity through a transferable discount to move from a rented to a market house in 2002. That is a miserable figure when compared with the total number of people who aspire to own their homes. Seventy per cent. currently own their homes and more than 80 per cent. would like to do so. Any responsible Government or party has a duty to ensure that those people have a realistic prospect of achieving that aspiration. Because the hon. Member for Edmonton is a caring and decent man, I know that he would agree with that. On that happy note, I give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown).

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Will my hon. Friend explain to Labour Members who are so hostile to the right to buy why their Government preside over the highest number of homeless people in the history of this country?

John Hayes: I do not want to labour the point about the Government's failure in social house building. I have mentioned it twice already and this is the third occasion. To refer to it four times would be excessive. The Minister, the Under-Secretary and the whole Front-Bench team bear the burden heavily. It must be engraved on their hearts that, as homelessness increases, their record on social house building worsens. We should move on swiftly to avoid causing any further embarrassment to Government Front-Benchers.

Jim Knight: I know that the hon. Gentleman has visited my constituency, because he wrote and told me about it when he was a spokesman on agriculture. He may remember from that visit that there is an acute shortage of affordable housing in my area, largely created by the right to buy and the inability to find anywhere in our beautiful natural environment to build any more housing. Is not the effect of the right-to-buy policy on our rural areas, where families are moving out and schools and post offices are closing, written on his heart? Schools and post offices cannot be sustained because of the lack of social and affordable housing that the Conservative party created.

John Hayes: It is flattering that the hon. Gentleman remembers my visit to his constituency. I, too, remember it and I can tell him that the farmers whom I met were complimentary about him, as I was. I advised them not to vote for him and they said that, although they liked him, they did not like him enough to do that. However, they highlighted some of the challenges that faced the area. I know that he feels deeply about the availability of social housing in rural communities. So do I, given the sort of seat that I represent.
	The hon. Gentleman knows that the right to buy is not available to people in small rural communities. He will also know that any Government need to have a policy that is targeted at the problem that he highlights. I hope that that applies to this Government but it certainly applies to the next Conservative Government. If one builds houses for renting or affordable market houses and simply sucks people in from outside the community rather than providing houses for people who need to work or have families there, one does not solve the problem.
	Squaring that will be a challenge for the Opposition when we are in government. I am acutely aware of that. One method, to which I believe that the hon. Gentleman will be sympathetic, is the exceptions policy. I believe that it is under threat; perhaps the Minister will give us an assurance today that it is not. I do not want that avenue to be removed from the communities that the hon. Gentleman described.

Matthew Green: rose—

John Hayes: I want to get back on stream, but it would be discourteous not to give way to a representative of the minor party before doing so.

Matthew Green: The hon. Gentleman says that the right to buy does not apply in rural areas, but he is becoming confused. When the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) was a Minister, he got an exemption for the right to acquire, which is a slightly different right that is not used anything like as often as the right to buy. The right to buy still applies in rural areas. It has decimated the stock in my area just like any other.

John Hayes: The hon. Gentleman will no doubt be looking carefully at the policies that we intend to introduce, which will assist areas such as his in the provision of high-quality social housing and, indeed, affordable market housing. When we do so, I know that he, in the spirit in which he always greets such things, will support us in his constituency and, I hope, elsewhere.
	Back to the Bill, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You have been, if I may say so, characteristically generous in allowing a slightly broader discussion than I had perhaps originally intended. However, I wanted to be generous to Labour Members and I hope that we have been able to explore some issues of principle. Out of that has come living proof of my suggestion that Labour Members are reluctant converts to the right to buy. People who have exercised, or who hope to exercise, that right will have listened to the tone of their remarks very carefully. I do not want to be more critical than that, and I shall move on to our new clause.
	There is a problem with the right to buy: although it has been a great success, there has been some tailing-off of uptake. That is a problem, as one wants everyone with the aspiration that I described to see it fulfilled. Another is abuse. In Committee, I made it clear that we have no truck with abuse of the right to buy, and it is indeed right and proper that measures be introduced to deal with it. It is not appropriate for a noble aspiration, as I described it, to be turned into a way of abusing the system for people who are behaving unscrupulously.
	The Government have properly recognised that and introduced changes, some of which we welcome. However, consistent with the spirit and intention of the original right to buy legislation, it is important that we simultaneously put proper demands on local authorities that may not be carrying out their proper obligations in respect of the right to buy as enthusiastically as they might.
	It is clear from a study of local authorities across the country that some drive the right to buy with enthusiasm while others are reticent in encouraging people to take it up. That can involve the speed with which they deal with inquiries, how they market their local policy and how they value their properties. The Minister will know that a study commissioned by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister found that, in more than a third of appeals against the price of a property valued by the council in the case of a right-to-buy application, the price tag was cut by more than 10 per cent. Indeed, more than three quarters of tenants who purchased from their council under the right-to-buy scheme secured a price reduction.
	There is a real problem with pricing not being accurate and that possibly being a disincentive to people who do not appeal. There will be people who see the price and think, "I can't afford that." They will turn back at that stage while those who appeal clearly get a positive result in the vast majority of cases. There is a problem with the right to buy and our new clause seeks to deal with it by proposing that local authorities
	"be required to formulate and publish publicly a yearly marketing plan for right to buy sales."
	The plan would include targets on the number of properties that the authority planned to sell and how many it had sold, as well as how it would achieve that target. That seems to me a sensible, constructive and measured way to encourage local authorities to think creatively about how to deal with the right to buy. Few local authorities would think that it could not be taken on board at small cost. It would not be a massive exercise, because good local authorities are doing much of that job anyway.

Alan Whitehead: I am following the hon. Gentleman's argument carefully. Would not such a plan interfere with the market?

Hon. Members: Yes.

John Hayes: I did not turn a deaf ear to the question. I did not hear it clearly. The truth of the matter, as the hon. Gentleman knows, is that the market is not perfect. [Hon. Members: "Oh."] Let me explain, for the benefit of those Members who are under the illusion that Tories believe that the market is ever right, that that has nothing to do with authentic Tory philosophy. The Tory party, throughout its history, has understood that there needs to be a proper balance between the intervention of government and other agencies and the free market. That is not a revelation. It is the view that has inspired the party of Disraeli, Shaftesbury and Wilberforce—[Laughter.]
	The hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle) is laughing. He will know that most of the 19th-century reforms were introduced and completed by Conservative Administrations against fierce opposition from the Liberal party. In the 20th century, too, Conservative Administrations introduced many measures, including the right to buy, which aided social mobility and extended opportunity to people who would otherwise not have been able to enjoy it and recognised that government must sometimes stimulate, encourage and temper the market. There is nothing odd about that.
	Indeed, one might even argue—I know that there is a certain hostility from some on the Labour Benches towards their Front Bench—that it is not the Tory party but the current leadership of the Labour party that has been seduced by the glitz and glamour of power and money. The hon. Gentleman should not therefore be so dismissive of the record—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has already thanked me for my generosity. May I tell him that it is not limitless?

John Hayes: I wondered at what point your generosity, Mr. Deputy Speaker, might begin to come to an end. We have now reached that important point.
	The intention of the new clause is to assist local authorities in the pursuit of a proper purpose. The Government have properly introduced a series of measures in Committee and today aim to curb the abuses of right to buy, with which we have no problem. In that spirit, I hope that they will support the new clause and so provide the balance that is absolutely necessary if the great success of the right to buy is to continue into the future.

David Drew: I want to speak to amendment No. 94, which I tabled, and to make some points as an antidote to the contribution of the hon. Gentleman who has just spoken.
	I was a member of a Labour authority in the early 1980s that pre-empted the Conservative party in terms of the right to buy. The one difference was that for every council house that was sold, we built another one to replace it. That must be the only way in which a sensible right to buy can ever be afforded.
	We have had a useful debate already in terms of the implications of the right to buy. In Committee, an attempt was made to consider further exemption on the right to buy where there were rural populations of less than 3,000. I make no apology for reintroducing that issue, because the Government must recognise that the problem of housing is not just an urban one but very much a rural one.
	Over the last five years alone, we have sold off some 40,000 council properties. That has happened at a cost. Yes, the right to buy is about giving the individual choice and the opportunity to buy the home in which he or she lives, but we also know of the damage done to others whom it prevents from living in rural areas. It is pleasing that amendment No. 94, which has been floating around for some time, is supported by both the Local Government Association and Shelter. They feel strongly that something must be done about the growing problem of not just homelessness but lack of accessibility. Our rural communities are being socially cleansed, in the sense that people on lower incomes can no longer afford to live in those areas.

Karen Buck: Does my hon. Friend agree that the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes) was wrong in his analysis of the problems connected with the right to buy? My hon. Friend is right about what is happening in rural areas, and indeed in urban areas such as mine. When properties have been sold and then sold on, those in a position to buy them are in a different category in terms of purchasing power and housing need. That leaves a much larger pool of people in true housing need. Properties in my constituency that were originally sold under the right to buy are now being sold for £350,000, and are thus completely beyond the reach of people who need affordable homes.

David Drew: I agree, and the problems affecting London also affect the more expensive parts of the south. On-selling often moves properties completely out of the affordable housing bracket—properties that have already been moved out of the social housing bracket.
	The amendment happens to chime with a recommendation in the report produced by the rural group of Labour Members, which I am proud to chair. The report, which was well received by the Front Bench, made a number of suggestions that I feel should be pursued. We said, for instance,
	"The right to buy from councils or RSLs should not be available to tenants in settlements of below 3,000. They concede that this 'may cause difficulties for those who already have this right', but argue that, 'as people realise the effect of the right to buy on their own families, they will understand why it may be withdrawn'."
	We were quite cheered by the thought that, as the Government recognised, there were places in which—on a purely local, discretionary basis—the right to buy had reached its natural conclusion. Surprisingly, however, few of the 26 areas that were given an opportunity to consider how they might restrict the right were deemed to be rural. We want to extend the recognition that we now live in very different times.
	As I have said, there is one thing worse than the removal of people's ability to buy their existing homes: the fact that they are no longer able to live in many rural areas. This is all about priorities, and about ensuring that we have a mixed rural population. That population is already under great strain in the south, and unless we do something dramatic the situation will worsen.
	There are alternatives, and the Government are considering them. One option is Homebuy; another is the system of community land trusts, which I favour. We will be creative, and we will be innovative. The simple fact, however, is that such schemes take time to bring about, whereas the crisis is real and happening now. I hope that my hon. Friends on the Front Bench will consider carefully what we are suggesting. We are not saying that the right to buy should go; we in rural areas are not unreconstructed Stalinists, we are just people who deal with our constituents.
	The issue is no longer one on which the Labour party stands in isolation. I gather that the Liberal Democrats moved an amendment on this point in Committee, and there are many Conservatives who are now beginning to consider a similar position because of the way in which we have seen our communities change as a result of the right to buy—and in this case, change for the worse. I should make it very clear that this is a matter that should be left, with the support of the ministerial team, to local discretion. If local authorities feel that the right to buy has a rightful place in their housing policy, then let it continue, but if they have seen the problems of right to buy and feel strongly about them, it is only right and proper that they should be included in the group of 26 existing areas where the right to buy is further restricted.
	I hope that Ministers are listening and that this debate will be continued not only here but in the other place when the Bill is considered there. The issue will not go away, and I make no apology for raising it. It is crucial. Anyone who knows anything about rural Britain at the moment knows that when Labour came to power, the No. 1 issue, without any doubt, was transport. Now that that issue has been addressed—not completely, but there are some improvements in transport—it has been overtaken, unfortunately, by housing. Anyone who does any research, or talks to lower-income constituents, will without doubt identify housing as the highest priority. I hope that Ministers take note, and that we can ensure that something is done on this vital issue.

Matthew Green: I shall attempt to be brief, because I know that we want to turn to other matters, but I cannot resist making a quick comment on the Conservatives' new clause 18, which is the "pile 'em high, sell 'em cheap" clause. It is an attempt to get councils to force through right-to-buy sales, and it is quite frankly barmy. Right to buy is right in some areas, but it works to the detriment of others. The hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) said that it should be left to local discretion, and that is exactly what should be done. No amendment has been tabled that makes that point, but it should really be up to a local authority to decide whether there should be any discount up to £36,000, in any area. That would solve many of the issues with which we are dealing.
	I wish to speak to amendments Nos. 116 and 117. The Government have rightly acted to prevent people from using right to buy just before a regeneration scheme or demolition goes ahead, which they know is going to happen, so that they can receive compensation money. The Government are right to take that action, but they have specified a period of 18 months. My understanding, from talking to people who work on such schemes, is that the common lead-in time from the point at which a scheme is announced to the point at which it goes ahead is much nearer to three years. There is quite a lot of concern in the industry, for want of a better word—it is not really an industry—and from people who work in the field that an 18-month period is insufficient. We have suggested a period of 36 months, which would be the three years that those people have mentioned. I ask the Minister to look closely at that time period, because the professionals who work in the field say that it is insufficient and that there will be problems as a result. The action is absolutely right, but the Government need to consider the time frame.
	I firmly endorse amendment No. 94, ably moved by the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew). Right to buy has decimated the housing stock in rural areas. In my constituency, it has caused tremendous problems of loss of social housing stock that cannot be easily replaced, and I commend the hon. Gentleman for tabling the amendment. I raised that point in Committee, and I hope that the Lords will look at it in detail and that the Government will act on it.
	Perhaps the best route forward is to leave to local authority discretion whether or not there is a discount. That would be a simple way of dealing with the situation, rather than the current approach of central Government's deciding which are the deserving rural areas. The centre does not always know best; in fact, it rarely knows best. The matter should be left to local discretion. That is new localism, and it is in chime with what the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister is talking about.
	I hope that the Government respond positively to the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Stroud, and I also hope that they extend the time period relating to demolition notices to 36 months.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Desmond Turner: I, too, will try to be brief, as I know that many other important new clauses follow mine. New clause 2 would give the Government enabling powers to bring in a national tenancy deposit scheme.

Hon. Members: New clause 2?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.

Desmond Turner: I am sorry, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I thought that we had finished the previous group of amendments.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: . We are dealing with new clause 8 and the related new clauses and amendments on the selection list. I do not know what the hon. Gentleman has chosen to speak to, but that is what we are dealing with. I call Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I think I know which group of amendments we are debating. The hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Dr. Turner) was anticipating a debate that is to come, and he will doubtless want to speak in it.
	I intervened on the Minister earlier in respect of new clause 8 in particular. It is an eminently sensible provision which determines that houses especially suitable for elderly people should be exempt from the right to buy. We can all think of types of housing—terraced housing, bungalows, small houses and so on—that are particularly suitable for elderly people, and which should remain as such. That is fine in theory, but I am not sure that new clause 8 adequately informs those who live in houses that may or may not be so designated about what is happening to their right to buy. The Minister needs to provide more of an explanation than she provided in answer to my intervention.
	When a Government fetter people's rights and take them away, they have a duty to explain to those people in simple terms what is happening to them. As with other notices in housing legislation, the information that such people will receive through the post will be complex. They should be told in no uncertain terms, through a warning on the notice, that if they are in any doubt as to what the notice means, they should consult a citizens advice bureau.
	My neighbour the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) may have tabled his amendment No. 94 under a misapprehension. If he studies the law carefully, he will discover that under right-to-buy designation orders, it is currently within the Secretary of State's power to designate rural settlements of under 3,000 as exempt from the right to acquire. I accept that his amendment deals with the right to buy, and it may well be that right-to-buy legislation should be brought into line with that relating to the right to acquire. On thinking about it as I am speaking, the designation orders to which I referred do apply to the right to buy. Perhaps the Minister will clarify that point. As such, the hon. Gentleman's amendment is unnecessary.
	In any case, it is worth putting on the record some misapprehensions about the right to buy. The average period of tenancy of all public housing in London is now 20 years and growing; in other parts of the country, it is at least 10 years and growing. The number of houses either in the council house or registered social landlord sector that become available is part of the housing problem. It is so important for the Government to build more affordable housing. If they want to solve the current acute homelessness and waiting list problems, the only way is to build more social housing.
	The right to acquire has very little effect indeed, because it amounts to only a small proportion of our total built housing stock. If the Government—or, indeed, a future Conservative Government—were to amend the rules on right to buy so that the proceeds, instead of going to repay borrowing, were put back into building new social housing, much more money would be available to put back into the pool to build more social houses. That is what we should be doing.
	I applaud the Government new clauses, particularly the provisions to deal with the scam whereby people immediately want to buy their homes when a demolition order is put in place. That loophole needed to be closed and I applaud the Government for tackling that.
	I do not, however, applaud the Government's provisions for reducing discount, particularly in London. It is now becoming very difficult indeed to acquire a house in London, even with the discount that the Government currently apply. People used to apply for a discount under the right to buy in order to put down a deposit on their mortgage. Because the price of London houses is now so high, it is very difficult for anyone to use the right-to-buy provisions accordingly.
	I hope that Government Members will not adopt a prehistoric socialist opposition to right to buy. As my hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes) said in ably opening the debate, it is the noblest ambition of all for someone to want to buy their own house. [Interruption.] One of the few ways in which people living in public sector housing are able to get on to the housing ladder is through right to buy. As my hon. Friend also said, we should be considering not only right to buy, but a whole range of imaginative schemes to help people on to the housing ladder.
	I commend the Government new clauses and hope that the Government will in turn consider new clause 18 as a means of helping to speed up right to buy, which seems such anathema to Government Members. After all, if people own their own homes, it takes away their need for housing in the public sector, thereby making places available for people on the waiting list or the homeless. The current position is precarious because of the number of homeless people. I believe that opposition to right to buy will not help to solve the problem.

Yvette Cooper: I should like to respond to the various points raised in relation to this group of new clauses and amendments. It may be an appropriate tribute to the 25th anniversary of Baroness Thatcher's arrival in Downing street that the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes) has abandoned her reverence for the free market and commitment to it in all circumstances. If only his party leader had been more inclined to agree with him and rather less enthusiastic about revering her legacy, the Conservatives might be doing rather better right now.
	Amendments Nos. 116 and 117 express concern about demolition and regeneration. I recognise concerns in that respect, which is why we have introduced new clauses to ensure that issuing a demolition notice puts an end to existing right-to-buy claims that have already been submitted. We chose to make demolition notices last for 18 months in order to strike a reasonable balance and to discourage the sort of exploitation that has been mentioned. We also want to encourage local authorities and others to get on with the job so that tenants are not unfairly denied the right to buy either because the schemes are unviable or the agencies too slow in the process. Three years can be a long time to get round to demolishing a property, and for tenants to be left in uncertainty and unable to exercise the right to buy. However, the Bill already provides for the 18-month life of a demolition notice to be extended by the Secretary of State, on application by the landlord. We recognise that there will be cases in which regeneration is phased, for example, or where particular schemes take some time. In some cases, a decision may be made to demolish a series of properties in a particular order, even though it may take some time to get round to the phase of demolition that is at stake.
	There is therefore flexibility in the existing provision. We will consider the matter further, but we think that the 18-month period is probably right at this stage. In view of that, I hope that the hon. Member for Ludlow (Matthew Green) will not press amendments Nos. 116 and 117.
	Amendment No. 94, in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew), would allow the Secretary of State to exempt rural areas entirely from the right to buy. Secure tenants in such an area would not have a right to buy as a result. We recognise that there are pressures on affordable housing in many rural areas, and my hon. Friend set out his concerns about his area very clearly, and made clear the need for affordable housing.

John Hayes: Will the Minister confirm that there is no intention to change or abandon the exceptions policy?

Yvette Cooper: We have said that we intend to continue with that policy. I assume that the hon. Gentleman means the restrictions that apply to the seven national parks, and to the 37 areas of outstanding natural beauty.

Matthew Green: The exceptions policy is used in rural areas to allow affordable houses to be built outside building envelopes. It is currently being considered under one of the new planning policy statements. I should be delighted if the Minister would confirm that she is not about to end the exceptions policy.

Yvette Cooper: I shall clarify exactly what I mean. The Bill does not change the protection in place for the seven national parks, the 37 areas of outstanding natural beauty and the 30 areas designated as rural, for this purpose, by the Secretary of State. That covers about 40 per cent. of the land area of England. Under section 157 of the Housing Act 1985, landlords may place restrictions on the resale of homes sold under the right-to-buy scheme. Landlords can choose between requiring owners either to resell only to people who have lived or worked locally for three years or, if they prefer, to offer the property back to the former landlord.

John Hayes: I want to be absolutely clear about this matter. The exceptions policy is the means by which small numbers of properties in rural communities have been built outside the building line. As the hon. Member for Ludlow (Matthew Green) said, it has proved very effective in developing houses in the sort of communities described by the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew). Will the Government stick with the policy, or are they going to abandon it?

Yvette Cooper: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will allow me to complete the point about landlords in the seven national parks, as I will then come to the point that he has just raised.
	Clause 162 extends the right of first refusal to all other right-to-buy landlords, wherever they are. However, it explicitly retains the current system in the national parks and in areas of outstanding natural beauty and designated rural areas. Our intention is to continue with the present system.
	The hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings asked about the broader issue of the exceptions policy. Our position has been made clear: we are sympathetic to the policy, which we consider to be important. It is subject to continuing consultation, but we hope to include it as part of a more flexible system. We will say more about the matter in due course, as I am not in a position to do so at the moment. We are aiming to achieve a more flexible approach that addresses the conflicting needs and differing pressures that arise in connection with housing issues.

David Drew: I do not want to get hung up on the difference between the exceptions policy and exemptions, but I hope that my hon. Friend will take it from me that the exceptions policy does not really have anything to do with the right to buy. There is a lot of evidence in rural areas that we have got all the land that we are going to get through the exceptions policy. We need to be much more creative, and much more dramatic, when it comes to dealing with the problems of rural homelessness.

Yvette Cooper: My hon. Friend is right, and I thank him for that clarification. My earlier lack of clarity stemmed in part from the fact that the exceptions policy has to do with planning, and is not directly related to the right to buy. As I have said, the Bill retains the existing approach to right to buy in the national parks and so on.
	I want to deal with the points in connection with rural areas that arise from amendment No. 94. The Government do not believe that at this stage it would be appropriate to introduce complete bans on the right to buy in certain areas, as the amendment proposes. We need to strike a balance between respecting the aspirations of social tenants in rural areas to become home owners and the need to retain social housing for local people.
	The House will know that we have reduced the maximum discounts available to tenants in certain areas. That has happened already in 41 areas of London and the south-east of England that are under the greatest housing pressure. In Committee, my right hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Planning was asked whether maximum discounts might be an alternative approach in rural areas. He said that the Government recognised that housing pressures were driving up house prices in some rural areas. There is no intention of introducing across-the-board, blanket bans, and the Government are continuing to monitor the situation. I can therefore confirm that we will keep the question of maximum discounts under review.
	We are also looking at further ways to increase the supply of affordable housing. We are seeking a more flexible approach that will ensure a fair balance for existing tenants and for people who will need affordable housing in the future. I therefore hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud will seek to withdraw amendment No. 94.
	Finally, I want to deal with matters arising in connection with new clause 18, moved by the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings. By its nature, the right-to-buy scheme has always been demand led. A tenant who applies for it, who meets the qualifying criteria and whose home is not exempted, has the right to buy his home, and his landlord must sell it to him.
	New clause 18 seems to want local authorities to promote and market the right to buy in a different way. It seems unlikely that qualifying tenants would be unaware of the right to buy. Section 104 of the Housing Act 1985 requires landlords to provide secure tenants with information about the provisions of the right-to-buy scheme. Also, there are an awful lot of advertisements on the telly at the moment promoting the right to buy. Various companies want to get involved with tenants as regards the right to buy, so it is surprising that the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings seems to suggest that people are not aware of their rights in that regard.

John Hayes: I hope that the Minister will deal with the question of pricing that I raised. A report carried out by the College of Estate Management in Reading stated:
	"The government is understood to be anxious that the findings of the report should be kept quiet for fear of prompting a rush of appeals."
	If properties are regularly and routinely overvalued, that must be a considerable disincentive to people exercising the right to buy.

Yvette Cooper: Obviously, properties need to be appropriately valued. That is not something that the Government can be expected to address in legislation, especially at a time when house prices are changing. However, the hon. Gentleman's proposal that local authorities should market the right to buy in that way seems a little surprising. It would mean that local authorities would have to go to great lengths in terms of time and expense to prepare and update plans to market something that tenants have already made clear they want and are prepared to pay for. We expect there to be more than 60,000 completed right-to-buy sales in 2003–04, so I do not think that the proposal represents a worthwhile use of local authorities' time.
	We are trying to achieve a balance. We want to give people a chance to get on the property ladder and to support their right to buy, but we also need to ensure that we clamp down on abuses and on the scams that have taken place. We also need to ensure that proper support is provided for affordable housing. We have doubled the level of investment that we inherited since 1997 and targeted more of that investment on areas of highest demand, which also tend to be the areas of highest cost. We cannot escape that fact. We do not think, however, that it is right for local authorities to have to set bureaucratic targets or develop marketing strategies. Nor do we think that it would be right to extend the right to buy to housing associations, because that would threaten their viability. If that viability had to be protected or compensation paid, it could cost £1 billion of public subsidy over three years.
	For the reasons I have given, I urge hon. Members not to press their amendments.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 9
	 — 
	Right to buy: claim terminated by demolition notice

'(1)   In section 138 of Housing Act 1985 (c.68) (duty of landlord to convey freehold or grant lease), after the subsection (2C) inserted by section 166 of this Act, insert—
	"(2D)   Subsection (1) also has effect subject to section 138A(2) (disapplication of subsection (1) where demolition notice is served)."
	(2)   After section 138 of that Act insert—
	"138AEffect of demolition notice before completion
	(1)   This section applies where—
	(a)   a secure tenant has claimed to exercise the right to buy, but
	(b)   before the landlord has made to the tenant such a grant as is required by section 138(1), a demolition notice is served on the tenant under paragraph 13 of Schedule 5.
	(2)   In such a case—
	(a)   the tenant's claim ceases to be effective as from the time when the demolition notice comes into force, and
	(b)   section 138(1) shall not apply to the landlord, in connection with the tenant's claim, at any time after the demolition notice comes into force.
	(3)   If—
	(a)   the tenant's claim has been established before the demolition notice comes into force, and
	(b)   within the period of three months beginning with the date of its coming into force, the tenant serves on the landlord a written notice claiming an amount of compensation under subsection (4),
	the landlord shall pay that amount to the tenant.
	(4)   Compensation under this subsection is compensation in respect of expenditure reasonably incurred by the tenant in respect of legal and other fees, and other professional costs and expenses, payable in connection with the exercise of his right to buy.
	(5)   A notice under subsection (3) must be accompanied by receipts or other documents showing that the tenant incurred the expenditure in question."
	(3)   The amendments made by this section do not apply in any case where the tenant's notice under section 122 of that Act (notice claiming to exercise right to buy) was served before the day on which this section comes into force.'.—[Paul Clark.]
	Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 10
	 — 
	Landlord's notice to complete

'(1)   Section 140 of the Housing Act 1985 (c.68) (landlord's first notice to complete) is amended as follows.
	(2)   In subsection (3) (notice not to be served earlier than twelve months after landlord's notice under section 125 or 146) for "twelve" substitute "three".
	(3)   The amendment made by this section does not apply in any case where the tenant's notice under section 122 of that Act (notice claiming right to buy) was served before the day on which this section comes into force.'.—[Paul Clark.]
	Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 11
	 — 
	Right to buy: suspension by court order

'(1)   In section 121 of the Housing Act 1985 (c. 68) (circumstances in which right to buy cannot be exercised), after subsection (2) insert—
	"(3)   The right to buy cannot be exercised at any time during the suspension period under an order made under section 121A in respect of the secure tenancy."
	(2)   After section 121 of that Act insert—
	"121AOrder suspending right to buy because of anti-social behaviour
	(1)   The court may, on the application of the landlord under a secure tenancy, make a suspension order in respect of the tenancy.
	(2)   A suspension order is an order providing that the right to buy may not be exercised in relation to the dwelling-house during such period as is specified in the order ("the suspension period").
	(3)   The court must not make a suspension order unless it is satisfied—
	(a)   that the tenant, or a person residing in or visiting the dwelling-house, has engaged or threatened to engage in conduct to which section 153A or 153B of the Housing Act 1996 applies (anti-social behaviour or use of premises for unlawful purposes), and
	(b)   that it is reasonable to make the order.
	(4)   When deciding whether it is reasonable to make the order, the court must consider, in particular—
	(a)   whether it is desirable for the dwelling-house to be managed by the landlord during the suspension period; and
	(b)   where the conduct mentioned in subsection (3)(a) consists of conduct by a person which is capable of causing nuisance or annoyance, the effect that the conduct (or the threat of it) has had on other persons, or would have if repeated.
	(5)   Where a suspension order is made—
	(a)   any existing claim to exercise the right to buy in relation to the dwelling-house ceases to be effective as from the beginning of the suspension period, and
	(b)   section 138(1) shall not apply to the landlord, in connection with such a claim, at any time after the beginning of that period, but
	(c)   the order does not affect the computation of any period in accordance with Schedule 4.
	(6)   The court may, on the application of the landlord, make (on one or more occasions) a further order which extends the suspension period under the suspension order by such period as is specified in the further order.
	(7)   The court must not make such a further order unless it is satisfied—
	(a)   that, since the making of the suspension order (or the last order under subsection (6)), the tenant, or a person residing in or visiting the dwelling-house, has engaged or threatened to engage in conduct to which section 153A or 153B of the Housing Act 1996 applies, and
	(b)   that it is reasonable to make the further order.
	(8)   When deciding whether it is reasonable to make such a further order, the court must consider, in particular—
	(a)   whether it is desirable for the dwelling-house to be managed by the landlord during the further period of suspension; and
	(b)   where the conduct mentioned in subsection (7)(a) consists of conduct by a person which is capable of causing nuisance or annoyance, the effect that the conduct (or the threat of it) has had on other persons, or would have if repeated.
	(9)   In this section any reference to the tenant under a secure tenancy is, in relation to a joint tenancy, a reference to any of the joint tenants."
	(3)   Regulations under—
	(a)   section 171C of that Act (modifications of Part 5 in relation to preserved right to buy), or
	(b)   section 17 of the Housing Act 1996 (c. 52) (application of that Part in relation to right to acquire dwelling),
	may make provision for continuing the effect of a suspension order where the secure tenancy in respect of which the order was made has been replaced by an assured tenancy.'.—[Paul Clark.]
	Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 12
	 — 
	Right of assured tenant to acquire dwelling not affected by collective enfranchisement

'(1)   Section 16 of the Housing Act 1996 (c.52) (right of assured tenant of registered social landlord to acquire dwelling) is amended as follows.
	(2)   After subsection (3) insert—
	"(3A)   In subsection (3)(a) the reference to the freehold interest in the dwelling includes a reference to such an interest in the dwelling as is held by the landlord under a lease granted in pursuance of paragraph 3 of Schedule 9 to the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993 (mandatory leaseback to former freeholder on collective enfranchisement)."
	(3)   The amendment made by subsection (2) applies in relation to the right conferred by section 16 as follows—
	(a)   it applies for the purposes of any exercise of that right on or after the day on which this section comes into force, and
	(b)   it so applies whether the lease granted in pursuance of paragraph 3 of Schedule 9 to the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993 was granted on or after that day or before it.'.—[Paul Clark.]
	Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 2
	 — 
	Tenancy Deposit Scheme (Regulation-Making Power)

'(1)   Where a landlord requires payment of a deposit in relation to any premises occupied as a dwelling under a tenancy, the occupier must pay that deposit into the Deposit Scheme unless subsection (2) applies.
	(2)   Landlords, or their appointed agents, who are members of national self-regulated bodies that are bonded by insurance schemes approved by the appropriate national authority may request in writing the payment of any deposit lawfully demanded directly to themselves.
	(3)   Where subsection (2) applies, the occupier must pay the deposit directly to their landlord, upon which the landlord must provide a written receipt.
	(4)   Any dispute between the landlord and the occupier over the return of the deposit is to be resolved by independent adjudication.
	(5)   The appropriate national authority may by regulations specify—
	(a)   The terms, conditions and management of the Deposit Scheme;
	(b)   Approved bodies and schemes under subsection (2);
	(c)   The mechanisms and procedures to be followed under subsection (4).
	(6)   The appropriate national authority may by regulations specify that a failure to adhere to such sections of this Part as it sees fit constitutes acts or omissions for the purposes of section 211(2) of the Enterprise Act 2002.'.—[Dr. Desmond Turner.]
	Brought up, and read the First time.

Desmond Turner: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
	I apologise for the earlier confusion. I was becoming anxious because time is running out so fast.
	The new clause sets out enabling powers for the Government to introduce a national mandatory tenancy deposit scheme. I shall not detail the arguments in favour of such a scheme or the copious abuses that happen, but many millions of pounds are milked from tenants by unscrupulous landlords and letting agencies every year. Everyone, including respectable and responsible landlords associations, wants that abuse to be stopped.

Matthew Green: I remind the hon. Gentleman that good landlords also lose out from the absence of a tenancy deposit scheme, because they lose money when tenants withhold their last month's payment. A good scheme would help both tenants and landlords.

Desmond Turner: The hon. Gentleman is right. As far as the Government are concerned, I am knocking on an open door. However, it is only partly open, the hinges are a bit rusty, it needs oiling and it takes a bit of a push to open. That is what my amendment seeks to do. In principle, the Government are minded to move towards a national tenancy deposit scheme. They have carried out a voluntary pilot scheme and their conclusion appears in evidence given to the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister: Housing, Planning and Local Government Committee, which reads:
	"It has been a very worthwhile pilot for us because it has proved that the principle of tenancy deposit protection through either of the two methods used—guarantee or the third party custodial approach—does work and it has also shown to us that a voluntary scheme is not going to work".
	The principle has therefore been clearly established.
	The scheme need not be expensive. Once established, the administration costs could be covered by the interest paid on the deposits held. Some relatively small costs would be incurred as the scheme was set up, but it would be cost-effective once it was set up. I do not foresee many disputes, because after a few cases that demonstrated that abuse of the system no longer worked, neither tenants nor landlords would see much point in trying. I am convinced that it would work and would not need to be as complicated as my right hon. Friend the Minister seems to think. He pointed out that a few outstanding issues remain, such as the need for written tenancy agreements, funding for a custodial deposit scheme, the nature of industry schemes, adjudication, enforcement and how to define a deposit. However, none of those issues is particularly complex or could not be readily resolved during the further progress of the Bill.
	I know that my right hon. Friend the Minister has referred the matter to the Law Commission, but I ask him not to wait for the outcome of its considerations. The Law Commission is also considering tenure, and we could have to wait a long time for its conclusions. The Bill is a suitable vehicle through which to establish a tenancy deposit scheme. In the days before congestion charging, one never knew when a London bus would come along. Well, here we have an opportunity and I appeal to my right hon. Friend to get on the bus and do the business. I shall not press the issue to a vote because I know that the Government are well disposed towards it. I prefer instead to stroke the Government into submission, and I ask them to accept the new clause.

Robert Syms: This suggestion is often brought up by citizens advice bureaux and in surgeries, but the official Opposition are not yet persuaded that it is the right direction to take. Many voluntary schemes work well and the first option should be to consider those. A great deal of money is involved, as it is estimated that there is £790 million in tenancy deposits. The Government should certainly consider the issue to see whether practice in the area can be improved, but we would not be happy to see a regulatory scheme introduced. The argument for doing so is not overwhelming. Best practice and voluntary schemes can improve matters in many areas.
	Some of the landlords who deal with the poorest tenants do not take deposits, because those tenants tend not to have deposits. Therefore, a mandatory scheme would not meet some of the objectives of those who favour one. However, in order to allow the Minister to put the Government's views on record on this important and topical subject, I shall conclude my remarks.

Matthew Green: I support a tenancy deposit scheme and I know that the Government need a little push to ensure that it gets into the Bill. However, we need to ensure that any scheme would not be universal. The Government scheme should be a fall-back position for cases in which someone has not joined an industry scheme.

Desmond Turner: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the deficiency of voluntary schemes is that only the good landlords join them, and we are not worried about them?

Matthew Green: I agree that that is why it should be mandatory. If the Government scheme is a fall-back scheme and the industry schemes are retained, landlords will have a range of schemes from which to choose. I hope that the Minister will agree that that is the best way forward and will also confirm that the Government will include this provision in the Bill. It would enhance the Bill and this is the best opportunity that we will have to introduce it for several years.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I am grateful to have caught your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I shall speak briefly as time is short.
	Before the Government introduce a scheme, will they assure themselves as to the scale of the problem? Will they make certain that the costs would not be detrimental to tenants, as tenants would receive no interest on their deposit? Can the Government tell us how quickly each tenant would get back their deposit from that bureaucratic body? Can they also explain how disputes would be dealt with? It would be nonsense if every dispute, however small, had to be dealt with by an adjudicator.

Yvette Cooper: We held a constructive debate in Committee on three amendments that proposed changes to accommodate provisions on tenancy deposits, one of which is now new clause 2. In that debate, my right hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Planning pointed out that we were extremely sympathetic to the sentiments that had been expressed by Members who supported embedding a tenancy deposit scheme in the measure. As he made clear, the Government support the principle of statutory provisions to safeguard tenancy deposits from wrongful misappropriation.
	As the hon. Member for Poole (Mr. Syms) said that the main Opposition party is not convinced of the case for legislation on the issue, we should bear in mind the responses from the voluntary pilot scheme. There was an extremely slow take-up of the pilot and the results suggest that a voluntary approach would have considerable limitations. It would not recognise the need to ensure that irresponsible landlords and those who exploit their tenants are involved in a broader scheme to protect tenancy deposits.
	We held considerable consultation on the issue and we have set out our support for the principle of statutory provisions to safeguard tenancy deposits. We need to recognise the scale of the problem. About 20 per cent. of tenants say that they have faced problems with their landlords over the return of their deposits.
	The Government are considering how we should proceed. The hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) put a series of questions, but at this stage we are not able to say exactly how a deposit scheme might work. We are considering what might be required in drafting such legislation and in the light of those considerations what might be a suitable legislative vehicle.
	The hon. Member for Ludlow (Matthew Green) asked about the scope for alternative arrangements and their promotion by trade and professional bodies. We are sympathetic to that idea.
	A series of detailed issues needs to be considered, including the balance between primary and secondary legislation. We cannot simply deal with such matters through secondary legislation. In Committee, we explained why the proposals in the new clause would in many respects fall short of what is required.
	On several occasions, the Government pointed out that we were keen to consider the scheme as part of the proposals for tenure reform published by the Law Commission.

Desmond Turner: The drafting of the new clause is probably open to improvement so I should be happy for the Government to draft a new clause, to their satisfaction, which they could table at the other end of the building. That would not be a problem. Can my hon. Friend explain why the Government feel that the issue needs to be conflated with the tenure question? Deposits are likely to be associated with various forms of tenure—shorthold, long and so on—so they could be considered as a freestanding issue.

Yvette Cooper: That is an important point and I shall try to address it. As I said, we made it clear previously that we were keen to consider the matter as part of the broader proposals for tenure reform that were published by the Law Commission. We have always said that we thought there was a case for addressing the issue of tenancy deposits in the context of those proposals.
	We have asked the Law Commission to draft indicative clauses on tenancy deposits to accompany publication of its draft Bill in the summer. We have also said that, by that time, we would attempt to produce legislative proposals as a response to the consultation that ended last year. That work is in hand and I can assure my hon. Friend that we are considering whether such proposals could be developed separately from the Law Commission's other work on tenure. As he rightly says, a series of points have been raised by the Law Commission's work; for example, in relation to written statements of agreement—written contracts. We are keen to look into the question of written contracts, which is important, and we are considering whether it would be possible to address the tenancy deposit issue separately.
	I stress that we are carrying out that work as speedily as possible, but my hon. Friend and other Members will realise that we must ensure that we develop robust proposals and that we do not end up with hasty and inappropriate legislation. We need to ensure that we resolve some of the complex issues that have been raised and find the earliest possible legislative opportunity to address them.
	I can assure hon. Members that we have been looking into some of the detailed proposals made by Shelter and into some of the other complex questions, such as how to ensure the establishment of an appropriate arbitration system and how to make the difficult decisions that would be needed in that regard. We are considering whether there are alternative models and whether there should be a single custodial scheme or whether professional and trade bodies could be allowed to establish schemes. There is a possibility that we might have third-party guarantees, for example through bonding or insurance.
	We have consulted on those options but we are still considering the practicalities of implementing them. There are several existing models, including the letting agents' national approved letting scheme. We are keen to find a way to support professional and trade bodies that are raising standards, rather than simply imposing a single model on everybody that might not enhance the raised standards that already exist.
	The pilot scheme showed that disputes over deposits at the end of a tenancy often involved inventories or cleaning, so we should need to prescribe such things as the requirements for inventories. Some of those points might be appropriate for secondary legislation and that would enable us to make speedier progress, but we need to be confident that we are achieving the right balance between primary and secondary legislation. As was noted in Committee, we need to consider the need for independent adjudication and determination of disputes and the means or bodies through which adjudication should be provided and appealed. We need to examine how decisions could be enforced and what redress there might be for an individual tenant in the event of a favourable decision. Schemes guaranteeing that the deposit money is available might need to be established and approved as well.
	As I have said, we are still interested in the timing of the Law Commission approach. We expect that the Law Commission will report to us as rapidly as possible before the summer. Of course, when we receive its proposals, we will need to consider them as well. We are also considering the issue as speedily as possible in the Department. I am unable to give the House a guarantee about the timing, but I can assure hon. Members that my right hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Planning and I are keen to report to the House and hon. Members who have expressed an interest in the issue as rapidly as possible because we recognise that there is considerable interest, not only in the House but throughout the country, given that many people face difficulties with landlords.
	Clearly, such proposals would benefit the many good and responsible landlords throughout the country and the private rented sector in general by providing more confidence for that sector. That is why we are keen to pursue the issue, but, equally, why we cannot guarantee—
	It being five and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on the programme motion, Mr. Deputy Speaker put the Question already proposed from the Chair, pursuant to Order [this day].
	Question negatived.
	Mr. Deputy Speaker then proceeded to put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that hour.

New Clause 18
	 — 
	Market plan for right to buy sales

'(1)   To monitor sales resulting from right to buy, local authorities will be required to formulate and publish publicly a yearly marketing plan for right to buy sales.
	(2)   The marketing plan will include:
	(a)   figures on the number of properties sold through the right to buy scheme in the last 12 months;
	(b)   a target figure for the number of properties to be sold through the right to buy scheme in the coming 12 months;
	(c)   plans for how to achieve (b).'.—[Mr. Hayes.]
	Brought up, and read the First time.
	Motion made, and Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
	The House divided: Ayes 135, Noes 333.

Question accordingly negatived.

Clause 157
	 — 
	Extension of qualifying period for right to buy

Amendment made: No. 70, in page 105, line 35, leave out from 'tenancy' to end of line 36 and insert—
	'(a)   if the tenancy was entered into before, or in pursuance of an agreement made before, the day on which this section comes into force, or
	(b)   if paragraph (a) does not apply but the tenant is a public sector tenant on that day and does not cease to be such a tenant at any time before serving a notice in respect of the tenancy under section 122 of that Act.
	(6)   In subsection (5) "public sector tenant" has the same meaning as in Schedule 4 to that Act.'.—[Paul Clark.]

Clause 158
	 — 
	Exceptions to the right to buy: houses due to be demolished

Amendment made: No. 71, in page 106, line 17, at end insert—
	   '(2A)   If, at the time when the notice is served, there is an existing claim to exercise the right to buy in respect of the dwelling-house, the notice shall (instead of complying with sub-paragraph (2)(d)) state—
	(a)   that that claim ceases to be effective on the notice coming into force, but
	(b)   that section 138A confers a right to compensation in respect of certain expenditure,
	and the notice shall also give details of that right to compensation and of how it may be exercised.'.—[Paul Clark.]

Clause 166
	 — 
	Right to buy: suspension of landlord's obligation to complete

Amendments made: No. 72, in page 116, leave out lines 28 to 36 and insert—
	'"(2A)   Subsection (2AA) applies if an application is pending before any court—
	(a)   for a demotion order or Ground 2 possession order to be made in respect of the tenant, or
	(b)   for a suspension order to be made in respect of the tenancy.
	(2AA)   The landlord is not bound to comply with subsection (1) until such time (if any) as the application is determined without—
	(a)   a demotion order or an operative Ground 2 possession order being made in respect of the tenant, or
	(b)   a suspension order being made in respect of the tenancy,
	or the application is withdrawn.
	(2B)   For the purposes of subsections (2A) and (2AA)—'.
	No. 73, in page 116, line 42, at end insert—
	'"suspension order" means a suspension order under section 121A.
	(2C)   Subsection (1) has effect subject to section 121A(5) (disapplication of subsection (1) where suspension order is made.".'.a—[Paul Clark.]

Clause 167
	 — 
	Disclosure of information as to orders etc. in respect of anti-social behaviour

Amendment made: No. 74, in page 117, line 25, at end insert—
	'(4)   Regulations under—
	(a)   section 171C of the Housing Act 1985 (c. 68) (modifications of Part 5 in relation to preserved right to buy), or
	(b)   section 17 of the Housing Act 1996 (c. 52) (application of that Part in relation to right to acquire dwelling),
	may make provision corresponding to subsections (1) to (3) of this section so far as those subsections relate to section 138(2A) of the Housing Act 1985 (c. 68).'—[Paul Clark.]

Clause 179
	 — 
	Implied terms relating to termination of agreements or disposal of mobile homes

Amendments made: No. 75, in page 135, leave out lines 24 to 39 and insert—
	   '"(1A)   The occupier may serve on the owner a request for the owner to approve a person for the purposes of sub-paragraph (1) above.
	(1B)   If a person ("the recipient") receives such a request and he—
	(a)   though not the owner, has an estate or interest in the protected site, and
	(b)   believes that another person is the owner (and that the other person has not received such a request),
	the recipient must take such steps as are reasonable to secure that the other person receives the request within the period of 28 days beginning with the date on which the recipient received it.
	(1C)   Where the owner receives such a request, he must, within the period of 28 days beginning with the date on which he received the request—
	(a)   approve the person, unless it is reasonable for him not to do so, and
	(b)   serve on the occupier notice of his decision whether or not to approve the person.
	(1D)   A notice under sub-paragraph (1C) above must specify—
	(a)   if the approval is given subject to conditions, the conditions, and
	(b)   if the approval is withheld, the reasons for withholding it.
	(1E)   The giving of approval subject to any condition that is not a reasonable condition does not satisfy the requirement in sub-paragraph (1C)(a) above.
	(1F)   If the owner fails to notify the occupier as required by sub-paragraphs (1C) and (1D) above, the occupier may apply to the court for an order declaring that the person is approved for the purposes of sub-paragraph (1) above; and the court may make such an order if it thinks fit.
	(1G)   It is for the owner—
	(a)   if he served a notice as mentioned in sub-paragraphs (1C) and (1D) and the question arises whether he served the notice within the required period of 28 days, to show that he did;
	(b)   if he gave his approval subject to any condition and the question arises whether the condition was a reasonable condition, to show that it was;
	(c)   if he did not give his approval and the question arises whether it was reasonable for him not to do so, to show that it was reasonable.
	(1H)   A request or notice under this paragraph—
	(a)   must be in writing, and
	(b)   may be served by post.";'.
	No. 76, in page 135, leave out from the beginning of line 46 to the end of line 2 on page 136 and insert—
	   '"(2)   Sub-paragraphs (1A) to (1H) of paragraph 8 above shall apply in relation to the approval of a person for the purposes of sub-paragraph (1) above as they apply in relation to the approval of a person for the purposes of sub-paragraph (1) of that paragraph."'.—[Paul Clark.]

Clause 181
	 — 
	Succession to site agreements by same sex partners

Amendment made: No. 77, in page 137, line 13, leave out clause 181.—[Paul Clark.]

Clause 183
	 — 
	Succession to certain tenancies by same sex partners

Amendment made: No. 78, in page 138, line 16, leave out clause 183.—[Paul Clark.]

Clause 186
	 — 
	Additional power to give grants for social housing

Amendments made: No. 18, in page 140, line 9, at end insert—
	'(4A)   As regards grants made by the Housing Corporation, an order under subsection (3) may also require the imposition of conditions in connection with such grants, and for this purpose may—
	(a)   prescribe conditions that are to be so imposed;
	(b)   prescribe matters about which conditions are to be so imposed and any particular effects that such conditions are to achieve.'.
	No. 19, in page 140, line 18, at end insert—
	'(5A)   If, by virtue of subsection (4A), an order under subsection (3) requires conditions to be imposed by the Housing Corporation in connection with a grant to a company under this section, the Corporation in making the grant—
	(a)   must provide that the grant is conditional on compliance by the company with such conditions as are required by the order; and
	(b)   if it exercises its power to impose conditions under subsection (6), must not impose any that are inconsistent with the requirements of the order.'.—[Paul Clark.]

New Clause 5
	 — 
	Overcrowding

'(1)   The appropriate national authority may by order make such provision as it considers appropriate for and in connection with—
	(a)   determining whether a dwelling is overcrowded for the purposes of Part 10 of the Housing Act 1985 (c. 68) (overcrowding);
	(b)   introducing for the purposes of sections 123 to 128 of this Act a concept of overcrowding similar to that applying for the purposes of Part 10 (and accordingly removing the discretion of local housing authorities to decide particular issues arising under those sections);
	(c)   securing that overcrowding in premises to which sections 123 to 128 of this Act would otherwise apply, or any description of such premises, is regulated only by provisions of Part 10.
	(2)   An order under this section may, in particular, make provision for regulating the making by local housing authorities of determinations as to whether premises are overcrowded, including provision prescribing—
	(a)   factors that must be taken into account by such authorities when making such determinations;
	(b)   the procedure that is to be followed by them in connection with making such determinations.
	(3)   An order under this section may modify any enactment (including this Act).
	(4)   In this section—
	(a)   any reference to Part 10 of the Housing Act 1985 (c. 68) includes a reference to Part 10 as modified by an order under this section; and
	(b)   "enactment" includes an enactment comprised in subordinate legislation (within the meaning of the Interpretation Act 1978 (c. 30)).'.—[Paul Clark.]
	Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

Clause 125
	 — 
	Requirement as to overcrowding generally

Amendment made: No. 15, in page 89, line 44, leave out '12' and insert '10'.—[Paul Clark.]

Clause 126
	 — 
	Requirement as to new residents

Amendment made: No. 16, in page 90, line 16, leave out '12' and insert '10'.—[Paul Clark.]

Clause 209
	 — 
	Orders and regulations

Amendment made: No. 20, in page 155, line 23, leave out 'or' and insert—
	'(ba)   an order under section (Overcrowding), or'.—[Paul Clark.]

Clause 205
	 — 
	Service of documents

Amendments made: No. 47, in page 152, line 16, after '4' insert 'or this Part'.
	No. 48, in page 152, leave out lines 32 to 40 and insert—
	'(5)   A document required or authorised by any of Parts 1 to 4 or this Part to be served on a person as—
	(a)   a person having control of premises,
	(b)   a person managing premises,
	(c)   a person having an estate or interest in premises, or
	(d)   a person who (but for an interim or final management order under Part 4) would fall within paragraph (a) or (b), may, if it is not practicable after reasonable enquiry to ascertain the name or address of that person, be served in accordance with subsection (5A).
	(5A)   A person having such a connection with any premises as is mentioned in subsection (5)(a) to (d) is served in accordance with this subsection if—
	(a)   the document is addressed to him by describing his connection with the premises (naming them), and
	(b)   delivering the document to some person on the premises or, if there is no person on the premises to whom it can be delivered, by fixing it, or a copy of it, to some conspicuous part of the premises.'
	No. 49, in page 153, line 11, leave out from '"premises"' to 'means' in line 12.
	No. 21, in page 155, line 27, at end insert—
	'(7)   In this Act "modify", in the context of a power to modify an enactment by order or regulations, includes repeal (and "modifications" has a corresponding meaning).'.—[Paul Clark.]

Clause 220
	 — 
	Meaning of "person having control" and "person managing" etc.

Amendments made: No. 60, in page 161, line 43, at end insert 'in occupation as'.
	No. 61, in page 162, line 2, after 'are' insert 'in occupation as'.—[Paul Clark.]

Clause 226
	 — 
	Short title commencement and extent

Amendments made: No. 22, in page 163, line 17, leave out
	'8, 153, 164, 180, 209'
	and insert
	'2, 8, 142 to 144, 153, 164, 180, (Overcrowding), 193, 194, 203, 207, 209, 211'.
	No. 23, in page 163, line 21, at end insert—
	   'Subsections (3) to (7) have effect subject to paragraph (b).'
	No. 24, in page 163, leave out lines 24 and 25 and insert—
	'(a)   sections 157, 158 to 163, 168 to 179, 182, 184, 185, 187, 204 to 206, 208, 210 and 212 to 220,'.
	No. 25, in page 163, line 33, leave out 'section' and insert 'sections 2 and'.
	No. 26, in page 163, line 35, after '156,', insert
	'(Exceptions to the right to buy: determination whether exception for dwelling-house suitable for elderly persons applies),'.
	No. 27, in page 163, line 35, after '167,', insert '186,'.
	No. 28, in page 163, line 38], leave out 'section' and insert
	'sections 142 to 144 and'.—[Paul Clark.]

Schedule 10
	 — 
	Residential property tribunals: procedure

Amendments made: No. 79, in page 215, line 41, at end insert—
	'(1A)   Procedure regulations may include provision enabling a single qualified member of the panel to decide whether an oral hearing is appropriate in a particular case.'.
	No. 80, in page 216, line 3, leave out 'sub-paragraph (2)' and insert 'this paragraph'.—[Paul Clark.]

Schedule 12
	 — 
	Minor and consequential amendments

Amendment made: No. 30, in page 230, line 5, leave out
	'34 In section 210(1) of the Housing Act 1996'
	and insert—
	   '34   The Housing Act 1996 has effect subject to the following amendments.
	   34A   In section 52(1) (general provisions as to orders) after "17," insert "27A,".
	   34B   In section 210'.—[Paul Clark.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Consideration completed.

Eric Forth: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I know that you are bound by convention, but is it not a bit rich in the circumstances that you are forced to say that consideration of the Bill has been completed? In the last part of the guillotined timetable, eight groups of amendments and new clauses were not even debated, including 24 Government amendments and new clauses. There was no opportunity to debate or divide on those matters, and yet again the House has been compromised and insulted. Would you consider, Mr. Deputy Speaker, asking Mr. Speaker if the words that you are forced to utter could be changed, perhaps to "Consideration only partly completed? Sadly, the House of Commons has not been able to do its duty due to the Government's heavy-handedness.

Clive Betts: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. According to the conventions of the House, is it reasonable for the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) to raise the curtailment of consideration when he did not participate in that consideration at all?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: These are not matters on which I can rule at this point in time. They were debated by the House earlier today in the debate on the programme motion. Any time that we spend on them is simply time taken out of Third Reading.
	Order for Third Reading read.

Keith Hill: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
	I thank all Members of the House for their informed, constructive and—I had intended to say universally positive contributions to the debate, but perhaps I should rethink that observation, in the light of the most recent intervention.

David Kidney: Earlier in our proceedings my right hon. Friend generously mentioned my eager anticipation of new clause 15 dealing with empty homes. While we are all in a constructive mood, will he say whether he plans in another place to include arrangements in the Bill to deal with empty homes?

Keith Hill: I am not in a position to anticipate that development, but just as I alluded to my hon. Friend's appearance earlier today on the "Today" programme, where he spoke on that subject, he will have seen my quotation in the media, in the Financial Times yesterday, in which I was reported as saying that I strongly favoured the introduction of legislation on empty homes. I would say, in the circumstances, "enough said".

Bob Spink: Will the Minister give way?

Keith Hill: How can I resist the hon. Member for Castle Point (Bob Spink)?

Bob Spink: I am delighted, but the right hon. Gentleman might wish he had resisted me. He has just thanked me for my contribution, yet his programme motion prevented me from making my contribution. Does he think that is appropriate?

Keith Hill: The hon. Gentleman—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I do not think we want to revisit the programme motion or the timing of the debate.

Keith Hill: I entirely agree and bow to your judgment, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I merely want to say that through correspondence and other interventions, the hon. Member for Castle Point is constantly in my thoughts. Of course, I seek to serve in every possible respect.
	I was saying—

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. As I understand it, on Third Reading the convention of the House is that one can speak only about what is actually in a Bill, not about what might be in a Bill. Would it therefore be in order to discuss what might have been in the Bill as a result of the amendments that we were not able to debate because of the Government's severe timetabling of the Bill?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman can safely leave such matters to the Chair.

Keith Hill: As I was saying, for the third time, the Government are committed to creating thriving, inclusive, sustainable communities and we have already done much to deliver that. We have made significant progress in improving housing supply in the south-east and other growth areas and in addressing renewal and regeneration in the north. Last week my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister led celebrations to mark the bringing of 1 million homes in the social sector up to a decent standard. But of course we need to do more. Communities are more than bricks and mortar. The Bill will help create a fairer, more efficient housing market and protect the most vulnerable in housing. The Bill will help—

Hilton Dawson: Speaking about what gloriously is in the Bill, has my right hon. Friend read this month's edition of Park Home and Holiday Caravan magazine yet? On page 13 is an article entitled "Bill of Rights". Nothing could express better the feelings of park home residents about the great improvements that the Government have made via the Bill to their situation. I pay particular tribute to the work of the Under-Secretary of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper). I hope that we can go on without further ado to have excellent, constructive discussions about implied terms and further reform in the park home sector.

Keith Hill: My hon. Friend anticipates my allusion in due course to park homes, but as we are on the subject, I concur in his congratulations to the Under-Secretary of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) on her work on the matter. When she introduced the park homes amendments to the Bill in Committee, I was able to follow by taking the opportunity to congratulate, and I am happy to do so again, my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson) on his sterling work in leading the campaign for that very necessary reform. He may have to be satisfied with what is already in the Bill.
	The Bill will help those most at risk from bad landlords and poor conditions. As my hon. Friend pointed out, it will strengthen the rights of park home owners. In that regard, there was universal rejoicing among all those who had been involved in the proceedings of the Bill. The hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) said in Committee:
	"It has been a good Committee in which hon. Members on both sides contributed to improving the Bill. Although we may return to some battles at future stages, we made progress, especially earlier today when the Government accepted the case for better regulation of park homes. That was a notable achievement."—[Official Report, Standing Committee E, 24 February 2004; c. 732.]
	We all rejoice at that.
	The Bill will also help tackle antisocial behaviour and it will help to create decent places for people to live.

Shona McIsaac: I echo the comments about the changes for people in park homes. I hope my right hon. Friend will assure me, on behalf of the many park home owners in Cleethorpes, especially those living in Barton Broads, who are having problems with a new landlord, that the Bill will help them. Will my right hon. Friend do everything he can to get it on to the statute book as speedily as possible?

Keith Hill: I am alarmed to learn of the actions being taken against some of my hon. Friend's constituents. To help them and thousands of other park home dwellers throughout the country, I give her my firm undertaking that I will do everything to secure the relevant provision in the Bill at the earliest opportunity. I am grateful for her support in the matter.
	The Bill will improve the supply of affordable housing and it will reduce delays and cut out waste when people are buying and selling homes. Other measures that the Bill will introduce deal with overcrowding. As the members of the Committee—

Andrew Love: I congratulate the Government on introducing a new clause dealing with overcrowding. On behalf of those involved, I thank the Government for their flexibility in that regard. Will my right hon. Friend look carefully at the consultation exercise and carry it out at the earliest opportunity? Will he ensure that when the Government change the overcrowding standard, they bring it up to 21st century expectations?

Keith Hill: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his enthusiastic press release on the subject. Through the consultation process we are all determined to bring standards up to those that are merited in the 21st century and to alleviate a great deal of suffering.

Karen Buck: I congratulate my right hon. Friend and colleagues on the new clause, which will take us a step towards bringing the standards governing overcrowding into the 21st century, and on commissioning the research that has given us some useful information on the health and welfare implications of overcrowded households. May I stress again that there are 1.5 million children living in overcrowded accommodation in London and under the present ludicrous 19th century standards, 20,000 families living in statutorily overcrowded houses? We need to sweep away the existing provisions, and we must move fast to implement new standards that give those families an opportunity to bring their children up in decent conditions.

Keith Hill: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. We all hope that we can move towards that desired objective through the new provisions of the Bill and the outcome of the consultation process, but we cannot get away from the fact—and I would not want to do so—that it is also an issue of resource and supply. We must work hard in that regard as well.
	On overcrowding, as my hon. Friends have indicated, we have introduced amendments to allow the universal statutory overcrowding standards in part X of the Housing Act 1985 to be amended by secondary legislation. As they indicated, I intend to consult over the next few months about how those powers might be used.
	On the licensing regime for houses in multiple occupation, the Government have tabled an amendment to add sex offences to the list that local authorities consider when they decide whether an applicant for a licence is a fit and proper person.
	In Committee, the concern was raised that a licence condition on landlords to control the behaviour of their tenants and visitors to the property is too wide and unclear, and that landlords could use it to harass tenants. As a consequence, we have tabled an amendment that clarifies that a licence holder's obligation, if one is imposed in a licence, relates only to antisocial behaviour by a tenant or a visitor, and only to the extent that the landlord is reasonably able to fulfil it.
	Concern was also expressed in Committee about the lack of clarity and detail in the Bill on how the proposed grants for non-registered social landlord provision will work in practice, and, in particular, about safeguards and accountability in the absence of a regulatory system similar to that that the relevant authorities exercise over RSLs. We tabled an amendment to provide for a regulation-making power, which allows the Secretary of State to set out conditions that the Housing Corporation must impose, matters that it must address and the effect it must achieve when a grant is given under new section 27A. In Committee, the perfectly understandable concern that a level playing field must exist between RSLs, non-RSLs and, above all, tenants was expressed, and we are determined to achieve such a situation.

John Battle: I welcome the Government's movement, particularly on HMOs—they listened, which is welcome. In opening the Third Reading debate, however, the Minister mentioned that the Bill's general aim is thriving, sustainable and inclusive communities, but that is unachievable if conflicts between residents, Travellers and Gypsies persist in our society, neighbourhoods and constituencies. The ODPM promised to review the matter during the course of the Housing Bill, and I urge the Minister promptly to bring forward the review and not to lose sight of the opportunity to address the matter as a housing and accommodation issue before the Bill completes its parliamentary stages.

Keith Hill: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising his concern about provision for Gypsies and Travellers, which is shared by other Labour Members. His point offers a salutary reminder that that issue is not, as is often perceived, restricted to rural areas, but is an issue in urban areas too. I reassure him that the ODPM is undertaking much work on the issue, and we hope to introduce a series of announcements and proposals, some of which may be incorporated in the Bill.
	In short and in total, the Housing Bill will directly contribute to the delivery of sustainable communities. On Second Reading, the Chairman of the ODPM Select Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Bennett), observed that this is a good Housing Bill, but that it had the potential to be a great Housing Bill. I hope that it is on its way to becoming a great Housing Bill, and I commend it to the House.

John Hayes: The right hon. Gentleman is a fair Minister, and he has the potential to become a very good Opposition spokesman, a position in which we hope that he will find himself sooner rather than later.
	The consideration of the Bill in Committee and on Second Reading was good, and today's debate was largely positive and constructive. However, we cannot let this opportunity pass without saying that it is unacceptable not to consider 20 Government new clauses and amendments and a dozen other new clauses on Report.
	Extremely cynically, the Government talked long on tenancy deposits so that we could not have a debate on warm homes, which would have been welcome on both sides of the Chamber. It is important that people outside this place know precisely what happened today. The new clause on warm homes was modest. It discussed what can reasonably and practically be done, and extending to 2016 the timetable to meet the Government's targets. Both Government and Opposition Members signed it, but it was not debated at the will of the Government, who cut short the Report stage.
	As I said, proceedings in Committee were conducted in good spirit, and as I also said, the Minister listened to the arguments advanced from both sides of the Committee. Many people outside this place—industry representatives and people who are concerned about housing—asked me for how long I expected us to debate the matter on the Floor of the House. Believing that the Minister would continue to show the good faith that he showed in Committee, I expected that we might get two days, in which time we could have covered all the aspects of the Bill that have gone unconsidered today.
	It is unacceptable that social housing grants to private developers to build social houses—a terribly important issue for the people who will rent those houses and RSLs—has not been debated. It is not appropriate that accessible housing registers for disabled people, empty houses, mobile homes for Gypsies and Travellers and a range of other issues have not been debated. That is an indictment of the Government, and it is a matter that the Lords will consider with grave concern. I expect those issues to be fully explored there, because they have not been fully explored here.
	I say that more in sorrow than in anger—my concern is shared by hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber. The Minister and the Whip for this business, the hon. Member for Gillingham (Paul Clark), who is a delicate, sensitive and kindly soul, have not lived up to their reputations.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: This is probably the largest Housing Bill ever—it contains 226 clauses and 13 schedules of highly complex legislation. This democratic Parliament owes the people whom the Housing Bill will affect more than one day's consideration. The Bill should have been considered for two days.

John Hayes: My hon. Friend adds his passion, which is on behalf of all the people who will be affected by the Bill, to my sorrow. He is right to amplify my point, which other hon. Members including the shadow Leader of the House and my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) also made, about appropriate consideration of such weighty legislation.
	The Bill deals with many important things. It introduces a new housing health and safety rating system, which, although it will be beneficial in many ways, will be expensive to implement. Questions remain about local authorities' ability to introduce the new system in a timely fashion. Do they have the proper resources and the necessary training and reskilling to make the new housing fitness system a practical reality?
	The Bill proposes a licensing system, and we should protect the interests of our most vulnerable citizens, who are obliged to rent houses and live in HMOs. Exploitation is possible in that sector, and it is appropriate that the Government have examined it and brought forward proposals. However, doubts remain whether the licensing system will encompass those in the greatest need and whether the regulatory burden will be so great that it will drive potential landlords out of the business of making homes available to people who need them.
	The Bill includes changes to the right to buy. The Government acknowledge, and the Opposition agree, that the abuse of the right to buy should be curbed, but there are doubts whether measures to curb such abuse will act as a disincentive to people who want to exercise their right to buy, and I am disappointed that the Government have not taken our proposals on board, which would have been a shot in the arm for the right to buy while also curbing abuse.
	The Government have added provisions on park homes, but only on the prompting of Members on both sides of the House, who noticed their omission at an early stage and asked for that to be rectified. Ministers have taken a lot of credit for making that concession, but they should not crow too much without adding the important caveat that on Second Reading those proposals came not from Government Front Benchers but from Conservative, Liberal Democrat and Labour Back Benchers.
	Then we come to home information packs. What use are they really going to be and what value will they add? We know about the uncertainties, the likely costs and the potential effects on the market, but we have heard no convincing arguments—today, in Committee or previously—for the introduction of these packs. There is grave doubt about their likely efficacy and effectiveness and about whether they can realistically be implemented in the time scale that the Government envisage. I am absolutely sure that Members in the other place will want to consider those matters in great detail and to ask the testing questions of Ministers that we have asked here. I have to say that Liberal Democrat Members have put similar questions, but have also failed to get appropriate answers.

David Kidney: rose—

John Hayes: I give way to the hon. Gentleman, who made a pithy intervention that was somewhat critical of the Minister a few moments ago.

David Kidney: This question is for the hon. Gentleman. The will of this House on home information packs is clear. Is he saying that his Conservative friends in the other place would try to sink the Government's plan?

John Hayes: Our Houses of Parliament always strike a proper balance between the considerations of this place and those of the other place. Of course there is a happy and productive tension between the two Houses because, as the hon. Gentleman knows, that is how legislation is properly scrutinised. Were it not for the good offices of Conservative and Liberal Democrat peers—that is the second tribute that I have paid to the Liberal Democrats in the course of one speech, which is beginning to test me to my very limits—on the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill, it would have been an altogether more imperfect piece of legislation, as we shall no doubt hear tomorrow. I shall not test your patience, Madam Deputy Speaker, by anticipating that debate.
	The truth of the matter is that there are still significant holes in the Bill. It is all very well for the Minister to say on the radio, instead of here, that he is interested in empty homes. We have been telling him for months that he should be interested in empty homes. [Interruption.]
	Throughout the passage of the Bill—on Second Reading, in Committee, and again today—Conservative and Liberal Democrat Members and some Labour Back Benchers have emphasised the fact that it was a golden opportunity to introduce legislation on empty homes, but the Government resisted that. We now hear rumours and suggestions that they might relent, but thus far they have not done so. It is not unreasonable to make that point again in this short Third Reading debate.
	Other hon. Members want to speak, so I shall draw my remarks to a conclusion. This Bill does some good things and this Minister does some good things too—what Bill and what Minister do not?—but I have yet to be convinced that we can reasonably support it, not least because of the inclusion of sellers packs, which remain the most significant part of the Bill in the sense that they will affect everyone who sells or buys a house. Many parts of the Bill are significant in other ways, but not in terms of their potential impact on people's lives, on the costs of buying and selling a home, and on the nature of the market and the professions that are part of it.
	The Government have failed to make a compelling case on that, as they have on a range of other issues that I have highlighted. For that reason, I will vote against the Bill, and I hope that my hon. Friends will join me. I urge the Liberal Democrats to vote with us because, although I do not want to put them off at this eleventh hour, I can see a meeting of minds between us on some of the matters that I have mentioned. Finally, I know that many Labour Members who are dissatisfied with the way in which the Bill deals with warm homes, empty homes and a range of other matters will be pleased that we have opposed it, because that provides the opportunity for those elsewhere to try to knock it into shape and to make something decent out of an unsatisfactory set of proposals.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. There is little time left before the conclusion of the debate, so I hope that Members will take note of that and be concise in their contributions.

Clive Betts: In general terms, this is a good Bill that attempts to deal with some of the worst housing conditions experienced by some of the poorest members of our community. I thank Ministers for their willingness to involve so many Back Benchers by engaging with us in debate about some of the most important issues.
	My main concern about the Bill is that in some respects it does not go as far as I would like. The hazard rating system is potentially very good, although it is complicated and its implementation will need careful handling. I welcome the fact that we are to have a national licensing system for houses in multiple occupation. Some hon. Members have fought for that for many years, because it will address some of the worst housing conditions for some of the poorest people in our communities. I am concerned, however, that the Minister still does not recognise the degree to which HMOs are not just a risk, but a problem of management in terms of the disruption and nuisance that they can cause to surrounding communities. If that is to be addressed through the additional licensing route, I hope that the Minister will consider the cost to local authorities engaged in the process and do something to assist them.
	The licensing of private landlords in selective areas is good step forward that might be extended in future. Again, it will deal with some of the worst housing problems in some of the poorest communities.
	The home information pack is another good step forward. The more I have heard the arguments, the more I have been persuaded of that. The packs will bring some order to a very disorderly process. The "offers around" system that operates in Sheffield, but hardly anywhere else in the country, is chaotic, and the new scheme will start to deal with that. It will of course be necessary to get right the training of inspectors and the insurance arrangements. I am sure that the Minister will return to the licensing of estate agents, because he believes that it sits happily with the proposals to regulate the whole approach to home buying and selling.
	The Minister gave reassurances in Committee on the tenancy deposit scheme. The Government are now committed to that scheme in principle, and we look forward to its introduction in the near future, because it will help to protect people who are ripped off by their landlords by having deposits taken from them for no good reason.
	For those reasons and many others, I support the Bill and congratulate my right hon. Friend on the way in which he handled it in Committee and today.

Edward Davey: It is important that Members in the other place and people outside Parliament realise that Members of the elected Chamber—not only Opposition but Labour Members—have been angered by the Government's frustration of genuine democratic debate on key housing issues. That is an absolute disgrace. We look to the other place to help to put that right.
	I regret having to say this, but we and our colleagues on the Labour Benches who have worked with us throughout the proceedings of the Bill on issues such as warm homes, tenancy deposit schemes and empty homes—issues that are crucial to our constituents and that we hear about in our surgeries week in and week out—have been prevented from debating them in the proper way in which they should be debated during the Report stage of a big housing Bill. That is an absolute disgrace, and it is one of the reasons why I hope that some Labour Members will have the courage to register in the Lobby their frustration at the Government's handling of the Bill.
	It is a shame that I have to say that, because parts of the Bill are welcome. The selective licensing regime in part 3 is particularly welcome, for example, in regard to tackling antisocial behaviour. As the hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Betts) said, part 1 represents a step forward in dealing with poor housing conditions, although there are real concerns about whether it can be implemented and whether the system that has been devised is too complex. Those concerns came out in the debate today, showing that there are worries even about the good parts of the Bill. Some of us have been campaigning for a long time for the measures in part 2 on houses in multiple occupation, but they do not go far enough, as the hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe had the courage to say.
	It is disappointing that, despite this opportunity to achieve some real goals and take some real steps forward, the Government have taken only two very nervous steps forward without advancing their cause more courageously or ambitiously. I would have liked the Bill to contain measures on giving landlords a more positive role. Landlords could play a key part in improving the private rented sector, and the Government need to find ways of engaging with them, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Matthew Green) mentioned in the curtailed debate on HMOs, and ways of working with organisations such as the National Landlords Association, to see whether training and accreditation schemes could be used to raise the quality of landlords so that they could deliver on some of these measures.
	The Liberal Democrats have particular concerns about part 5 of the Bill. We believe that the home information packs represent a totally unnecessary regulation. The owner-occupier market manages to carry out more than 1.2 million transactions a year. There seems to be a prima facie case, therefore, for saying that that market is not failing, but succeeding. People manage to move home very effectively, and when a purchase falls through, it tends to be because someone's financial position has changed or because they have to move somewhere else because of their job. Home information packs will not solve those problems, and the solution that the Government have come up with does not address the problems. Indeed, they are unsolvable because they are the problems of normal life.
	This is a market that the Government should leave well alone. The danger is that their so-called solution will make the housing problem even worse, particularly in the owner-occupied sector, where house prices are rocketing and there are not enough affordable homes. The Minister did not reply to my question about whether this proposal had been put to Professor Kate Barker when she was producing her review on the supply of housing. In fact, because of the way that this debate has gone, he has answered hardly any of the questions that hon. Members have asked. That, too, brings the House into disrepute.
	The Liberal Democrats sincerely believe that the introduction of home information packs will work against the Government. I say to the Minister in a genuinely constructive manner that this measure will come back to haunt the Labour Government. In a few years' time, people will be asking who is responsible for all the regulations, extra costs and delays, and we will be able to say, "We told you so," and tell them that it was the Minister for Housing and Planning, the right hon. Member for Streatham (Keith Hill). Voters will be seriously fed up when they have to live with these ridiculous regulations.
	To give at least one more hon. Member the chance to speak, I shall bring my remarks to a conclusion. I hope that I have made it clear that, regrettably, the Liberal Democrats will have to vote against the Bill. It contains some good measures, but there are far too many omissions, and far too many chances to improve housing conditions have been missed. Moreover, some of the proposals in the Bill will do huge damage to the housing market and to the interests of many of our constituents.

David Kidney: In truth, this started out being a good Bill and it has got better. As we are now sending it to the other place, there is still the capacity for further improvement. I would like to give the ministerial team unconditional credit for listening to the Second Reading debate and to the pressure from hon. Members over park homes, and for making wholesale amendments at the right time in Committee. Those amendments will be very welcome to the residents of park homes around the country.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I heard the hon. Gentleman's cogent performance on compulsory leasing on the "Today" programme. How can he give unconditional credit to the Minister when his proposals have not even been debated this evening because of the timetable?

David Kidney: The hon. Gentleman obviously did not hear me saying that I was talking about park homes. I would like to say to all those residents of park homes who will welcome what happened in Committee that, here tonight, things also got better when we accepted amendment No. 75.
	The Government have improved the Bill further. My right hon. Friend the Minister mentioned the concession that they have made, again after listening to the debate in Committee, on including sexual offences as a relevant matter when licensing the owners of houses in multiple occupation. The Minister also acknowledged the pressure that was brought to bear on the Government on overcrowding, which has led to measures being included in the legislation today. All those things are to the Government's credit.
	Some provisions are still missing from the Bill as it goes to the House of Lords. A good tenant deposit scheme and a provision on warm homes would be welcome. However, as time is short, I shall pick out as the most innovative measure in the Bill the new local authority power to make management orders in certain circumstances. Will my right hon. Friend the Minister tell us—I realise that I shall not get an answer now—whether it is anticipated that those orders will be the solution to the problem of bringing empty homes back into use? Let us remember that last year, 719,000 homes were standing empty in England alone, 80 per cent. of which were in private ownership and 300,000 of which were empty for more than six months.

John Hayes: The hon. Gentleman has made many good points, and he is right to say that the Minister listened to the debates on Second Reading and in Committee. Does he share the regret of the Conservative Opposition and the Liberal Democrats that there has not been more time to explore the issues today?

David Kidney: Perhaps I should give notice that I shall take no more interventions like that, because time is so short.
	I regard the new power for local authorities to make management orders as a power of last resort, so in the case of empty homes, I would expect the authorities to advise or cajole, and to give help to owners. Some councils already give the owners of empty homes grants to get the properties back into use. However, I would imagine that, under a management order, a local authority would take possession of an empty property, repair it and let it at an affordable rent. That would help to meet the still dreadful housing needs that exist in this country, and to halt the degradation of the surrounding area, in terms of both the environment and crime. Owners would benefit from such a scheme, because they would get the rent from the property and retain ownership of it.

Lynne Jones: Will my hon. Friend give way?

David Kidney: No, I want to finish now, if I may.
	Such a measure would help people with housing needs, and neighbours in areas with empty houses would be delighted to see those properties brought back into productive use. Society would therefore be very satisfied if we could make that response to the problem. I hope that the Government will be delighted that everyone supports that idea and wants to do something about it before the Bill reaches the statute book.

Bob Spink: The right hon. Member for Streatham (Keith Hill) is an excellent Minister, and it is therefore all the more surprising that he is driving the measure through. The Bill is poorly conceived and considered. It has received especially scant consideration today. The main problem is the element of compulsion, which spoils some potentially decent provisions. The worst clause is the provision on home information packs. The Bill offers no reliable improvements to the dysfunctional house buying and selling process.
	More than 1 million residential property transactions take place each year and it is important not to interfere with or disrupt the operation of the housing market. The Bill will do that and it is especially significant at this time, when supply in so many areas is insufficient to meet demand. That drives up property prices, with all the attendant problems that we know so well.
	Philosophically, the country wants less interference from the Government: less bureaucracy, less regulation and fewer inspectorates. In short, people want less regulation and Government interference. However, the Bill and the statutory imposition of the home information packs mean more, not less, Government interference; more Big Brother centralised government; more costs for the seller and therefore the buyer; more cost to the public purse to pay for the new regulations and the new inspectorate, and therefore more house price inflation.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way, because I shall not have time to make a contribution. Every year, 1.8 million houses are sold. Does my hon. Friend realise that the Government's estimate of £600 per information pack will add more than £1 billion to the cost of buying and selling houses? If the realistic cost of £1,000 is taken into account, it will mean an extra £1.8 billion. Does my hon. Friend believe that we will achieve anything worth while for that money?

Bob Spink: My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the specific figures. The process will cost more, but we shall achieve less. The Bill is a typical socialist measure—[Laughter.] The compulsion to produce the home conditions report will increase the cost of selling houses. Hon. Members laugh now, but they may not do so in two or three years, when their constituents knock on their surgery doors. It will deter some sellers from entering the property market. The statutory requirement means that home information packs must be in place before any marketing can occur. That will unduly reduce the number of houses—
	It being six and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on the programme motion, Madam Deputy Speaker put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair, pursuant to Order [this day].

Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time:—
	The House divided: Ayes 292, Noes 159.

Question accordingly agreed to.
	Bill read the Third time, and passed.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 15 (Exempted business),
	That at this day's sitting the Motion in the name of Mr Peter Hain relating to Visitor Facilities may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Kemp.]
	Question agreed to.

Visitor Facilities

Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [22 April],
	That this House approves the First Joint Report of the Accommodation and Works Committee and the Administration Committee on Visitor Facilities: Access to Parliament (House of Commons Paper No. 324) and endorses the Committees' proposals for a new reception and security building at the north end of Cromwell Green.—[Mr. Woolas.]
	Question again proposed.

Madam Deputy Speaker: I advise the House that Mr. Speaker has not selected any of the amendments.

Andrew MacKinlay: I remind colleagues that we were interrupted on 22 April during consideration of the joint report of the Administration Committee and the Accommodation and Works Committee. I had just said how lovely Westminster Hall looked that afternoon. I visited it again today and spent some quiet time there, soaking up the wonderful atmosphere, which I want to refer to again in a few moments.
	I am pleased to have the opportunity to acknowledge the enormously difficult task that Mr. Speaker, the Metropolitan police and the Serjeant at Arms have in the field of the security of the House. It is not easy for them to balance all the pressures and constraints, the need for access and openness and the fact that there are 659 different views in this place as to what is the correct level of security, access and so on. We should place that on record. I do so in the knowledge that, very unfairly, the Serjeant at Arms was traduced by a newspaper a few weeks ago. I thought it not only flippant but very unfair to have a go at him, because he and his staff are preoccupied every day with all the difficult and sensitive decisions relating to individual Members of Parliament and the need for oversight, with Black Rod, of the security of the Palace. We should acknowledge that this evening.
	I have read and read again the report before us, and I think there is an error here. We are in danger of conflating two separate things: the immediate problem of security and the wider aspirations to which my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham (Mr. Banks) referred at length on 22 April. [Interruption.] His speech was qualitatively very useful. I share with him the aspiration of making this place much more inviting and open and providing greater opportunities for people to understand its history and perhaps to enjoy an interpretive centre. That is referred to in the paragraph of the report dealing with longer-term objectives. We are confusing two separate issues, and I think that that is a mistake.

Eric Forth: Does the hon. Gentleman share my puzzlement that we are being asked to go ahead with what is allegedly a security measure at the very time when the Leader of the House has been at great pains to tell us that a comprehensive review of all security is being carried out? Does he think it premature, to say the least, to spend £5 million of public money on this project when the security review has not yet been completed?

Andrew MacKinlay: The right hon. Gentleman anticipates the thrust of much that I want to say. Since 22 April, I have thought about the issue on many occasions, and have reconsidered some of the proposed developments and initiatives to explore what alternatives there are. I want to amplify why I think that the proposals are premature. I also beat my breast three times because I confess to the House that, in retrospect, I think that there was a case either for us to have a secret sitting or some other system of deliberation so that some of our ideas and reservations could have been shared in confidence. I say that because there are some issues, even now, on which we would all have views, on which it is probably not wise to canvass in the open.
	I know that there was an endeavour to involve and advise as many people as possible about some of the security constraints, both in relation to the previous debate on the screen and to this one. We were told that some 60 Members were approached, largely Privy Councillors; hon. Members will understand how this obsession with Privy Councillors grates with me. In any event, may I suggest that, in addition—but not instead—we use the executive of the 1922 committee, Labour's parliamentary committee and the representative organisations of the other parties to at least expand the consultation? After all, the 1922 committee executive and the Labour party's—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman could confine his remarks to the debate under consideration.

Andrew MacKinlay: I will, Madam Deputy Speaker, but my point was that the consultation, which is mentioned in the report, could have been greater. As this issue is not going to go away, I invite the House and the authorities to consider whether in addition to Privy Councillors, the shop stewards—the 1922 committee and the parliamentary committee—might be used.

Tony Banks: Neither the 1922 committee nor the parliamentary Labour party are leak-free zones, as my hon. Friend well knows. I am glad that he has had a rethink about considering matters in closed session. I was the only Labour Member who voted for a closed session, and I was phoned up by a newspaper and asked if it was a mistake. I have perhaps made many mistakes in my life, but that was not one of them.

Andrew MacKinlay: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I was trying to explain that we need some way of being able to share our concerns and a closed session is one such way. I have tried to canvass other ideas, as these issues will not go away. I do not want to labour that point.

Marion Roe: To try to help the hon. Gentleman and others, I am sure that he will appreciate that I cannot discuss in the Chamber detailed security advice. I can, however, confirm that the proposals have been examined by security specialists, both inside and outside the House, and the best current advice is that they would significantly improve on the current arrangements, which I am sure that he will agree are not necessarily satisfactorily, and no problems whatever have been identified with the proposed location.

Andrew MacKinlay: I am coming to that. I do not doubt that there has been consultation with the security and intelligence services and other professional advice. Perhaps I would like occasionally to be included in the circle. If we look at column 508, on 22 April, we see that the Deputy Leader of the House postulated that someone who supported the screen would logically support these motions. I voted for the screen, but I am not persuaded by these recommendations. It does not necessarily follow.

Lembit �pik: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that a bits-and-pieces approach towards security is exactly the problem? Agreeing with one measureincidentally, I did not agree with the screen, as it is another limitation on our interaction with the publicdoes not necessarily means that one agrees with another. Since this is a strategic issue, does he agree that we need a strategic solution, not something that bolts on one piece after another, perhaps without achieving the objective at all?

Andrew MacKinlay: I agree.
	On the technical point, I asked the Deputy Leader of the House a question previously, and I hope that he will reply later. If somebody, heaven forbid, wished to explode a device in the proposed new building, how would that be an appreciable improvement on the existing arrangements, which, without question, endanger staff? I am not an expert, but I understand that explosions blow outwards. If we want a building that will deal with screening, we want one that will allow the thrust of such an explosion to go outwards. I stress that I have not had a reply on this point and the fact is that the building proposed is in a trench. If the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald), who is a member of the Commission, has an answer, I would be pleased to have it.

Oliver Heald: As I said to the hon. Gentleman last time, I cannot go into the detailed security advice and I have not had a great deal of it in respect of this building. I thought that the general point about security screening buildings was that they had thick walls to stop the blast going outwards and make it go upwards.

Andrew MacKinlay: I am genuinely surprised that the hon. Gentleman takes that view, which is why we need some opportunity to explore these issues in confidence. One of the reasons that the marquees, which we all agree were unsightly, were put outside St. Stephen's entrance, on the advice of specialists, was the heightened security at that time. Those marquees are there precisely because if an atrocity involving an explosion had been attempted, they would have blown outwards. Marquees were used outside St. Stephen's, and are used outside the United Nations building in New York, precisely to minimise loss of life. I challenge someone to explain to me how the proposed new building will meet that requirement. I suggest that it does not.

Greg Knight: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Andrew MacKinlay: If the right hon. Gentlemen wants to intervene, Madam Deputy Speaker, I am torn.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. It is entirely up to the hon. Gentleman whether he wants to accept an intervention.

Andrew MacKinlay: I give way to the right hon. Gentleman.

Greg Knight: Is not there an answer already to the problem of visitors getting wet when it is raining outside? We already have a marquee structure, which is used once a year on the occasion of the state opening and erected outside the House of Lords. It would be far cheaper to put up the small tented area that we have for state opening and leave it up so that visitors queueing to get in at the other end of the building do not get wet when it rains.

Andrew MacKinlay: That may be a valid consideration and it relates back to the point that we should not approve the motion tonight but have a period of reflection during which some of these points can be explored. As well as explaining the technology of what is proposed, will the Deputy Leader of the House, and even the Chairman of the Administration Committee, who intervened a few moments ago, undertake that the people who advised the House will not, after the building is erected, if it is, in the Cromwell garden, say that because of the heightened security situation, marquees will have to be erected? That is what I think will happen. We will get the building, it will be deemed administratively good and allow the throughput that has been mentioned, which is a valid point, but if and whenregrettably, I fear that it is almost inevitablethere is a renewed heightened security situation, advisers will say to Officers of the House that we must erect marquees. That was precisely what happened some months ago when marquees were put up outside St. Stephen's entrance.

Eric Forth: Given the territory that the hon. Gentleman now wishes to explore and the sensitivities voiced a moment ago by the Chairman of the Administration Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Mrs. Roe), should we not at least consider allowing the House to sit privately so that we can speak more freely? We tried that when this matter was last discussed. I felt rather let down when the Leader of the House, who had said that he would be open and honest, voted against the motion for the House to meet in private and then barefacedly told us later that he could not tell us everything because it was all very secret and hush-hush. It might be worth considering the possibility of allowing ourselves to obtain further and better information in a private sitting this evening, so that we can make some progress.

Andrew MacKinlay: I have already beaten my breast and do not want to labour the point. I have said that I am sorry that we cannot have some form of secret sessioneven informallyand that it is probably my fault because I did not pursue the matter at the time.

Paul Tyler: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Andrew MacKinlay: In fairness to the House I want to make some progress, but I will give way.

Paul Tyler: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, but I think that he owes me one. He will recall that I made an uncharacteristically abbreviated speech, lasting just two minutes, so that he could speak.
	I suggest that the statement with which the hon. Gentleman has just been led to agree conflicts with what both he and the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) have said previously. At the moment we are not likely to receive such information, in private or in any other context, because we have not been given the wide-scale, comprehensive security assessment that we have all been promised. Even if we were to sit in private, we would be likely to receive the same sort of information from the Government that we have received previously. This is the point: we do not have the context for either this discussion or

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. At this point we should not be debating the pros and cons of sitting in private. The House has a way of dealing with such an issue, should it arise.

Andrew MacKinlay: The hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Derek Conway)

Greg Knight: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. It concerns the point that you just made. Will you confirm that, if any Member decides to put it to the test, you could accept a motion for us to sit in private, even though, as this is an adjourned debate and not a debate starting afresh, the question has already been put?

Madam Deputy Speaker: That is correct.

Andrew MacKinlay: As I was saying, the hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup, who, I think, chairs the Accommodation and Works Committee, intervened to speak of how he came from Yorkshire to visit this place as a very excited 11-year-old. That struck a chord with me. I think that everyone remembers their first visit. I was 12 and recall queueing for two and a half hours in St. Stephen's Hall to see Harold Wilson, then shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer, make a wonderful speech. It had a profound effect on me. Rather sadly, I never wanted to be a train driver after that; I wanted to come here.
	Over the next 30 yearsthis is relevant, Madam Deputy Speaker, because we are talking about visitor facilitiesI did come here, and I queued. I look back with nostalgia to the days when it was possible to go to the Strangers Gallery and obtain a pass from the staff of the Serjeant at Arms to go down to the Strangers Cafeteria for half an hour. If only those days existed now. There used to be double ranks of queues in St. Stephens Hall. I mention that because one of the problems emphasised in the report is that of people queueing outside in the rain. I think that it will always be thus, because even with the new arrangements there will be exceptional occasions on which people will queue in the rain; but, in comparison with the days of my youth and adolescence, and even with more recent times, we do not seem to have packed them into St. Stephens Hall as we used to, although there is still capacity for keeping people out of the rain.

Bob Spink: The hon. Gentleman suggested that the new provisions would increase throughput by speeding up people's entry. Has he thought about that carefully? Increasing the number of security screening machines from two to only three strikes me as a missed opportunity. If we are to go to all this expense and spend 5 million, why do we not put in four or five machines so that we can get people through even more quickly?

Andrew MacKinlay: What the hon. Gentleman says demonstrates that some of us have a feeling in our bones that this has not been examined adequately. I suggest that the small space in Cromwell Green would not allow an increase in numbers but the hon. Gentleman makes the valid point that what is proposed is only a marginal increase on the existing arrangements.

Lembit �pik: Does it strike the hon. Gentleman as ironic that one of the problems is not how fast we can get people into the place, but how much space there is? In fact, we have managed to reduce the amount of available space in the Strangers Gallery. Far from making it easier to get people in here, we have increased the backlog by reducing throughput.

Andrew MacKinlay: I am not going to respond to what was dealt with in our last debate, but I will say that I supported the idea of the screen. I did so because I was privy to information that was not discussed in the Chamber, which persuaded me of the urgent need for it. There might well be information that could persuade me of the need for what is proposed now that cannot be shared with me in this open forum.
	Let me now deal with the proposed development. I invite the House to consider this. In a sense, we are the planning committee: we are going to give ourselves planning permission for a development. We have a duty to approach this in the same way as any other developer. We do not usually do that; we sometimes deal with matters in a shameful way. We are not going to give ourselves outline planning permission tonight; we are going to give ourselves total planning permission. There will be no coming back.
	Members who have served on local planning authorities will know that sometimes people who apply for permission for outline plans are given consent, subject to detailsfor instance, details of the facing materials. What will the end result look like? I have read the report several times and it is not clear what the facing materials will be or what the roof will look like. As far as I can tell from the black-and-white drawings, if I am standing with Cromwell Green behind me I will see some sort of glass building, but that is not clear. That is an important point. People may think I am being pernickety, but the House should be ashamed of itself in this regard. We have ignored normal planning procedures in the past. I have spoken here before of those dreadful marquees on the Terrace. Pugin and Barry did not design them, nor did the Almighty; they were put there by us.
	A paragraph in the report tells us that there will be consultations. We are going to approve this proposal tonight when consultations with the appropriate bodiesincluding, I believe, the fine art commissionhave not been exhausted. I think that our track record is shameful. First, we are going to give approval tonight without those consultations and the resulting observations; secondly, the fine art commission has said that the marquees on the Terrace should come down every year, but they do not nowwe have forgotten about it. We have forgotten about it because it does not suit us. That would never happen if a private developer were involved.
	We should not approve this proposal without consultations with the fine art commission and the various heritage authorities. We should consider their responses to the idea in principle and any conditions relating to the facing material, construction and appearance. We should give a solemn and binding undertaking to adhere to the conditions that they lay down, rather than following the dreadful, shameful practice that we have allowed to take place on the Terrace of the House of Commons.

Iain Luke: Will my hon. Friend accept from one who has served on both the Administration Committee and a planning committee on a local authority that those questions were posed during deliberations on the document? Assurances were given that consultation had taken place and that advice had been taken by the appropriate heritage bodies. Although there is no detailed building specification, I am sure that neither of the Committees involved would ever allow us to proceed in the knowledge that there would be abuse of heritage and conservation principles.

Andrew MacKinlay: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Perhaps he can explain to me why paragraph 32 contains a statement on the costs which says:
	This figure does not take into account the effects of inflation or the cost of any additional related security works required once consultations with security and heritage bodies have been completed.
	Those have not taken place. I did not write that report, someone else did and I ask them a simple question. The report refers to consultation with the heritage bodies, but that has not yet happened. I am pleased that my hon. Friend raised that matter, because he is a diligent Member and no doubt was a diligent member of his local authority, but I can tell him that when this House asks, it gets conditions laid down and then ignores them. That is why we have those wretched marquees out there, as we speak. They should not be there, and would not be if we had followed the recommendationsthe equivalent of the conditions laid down in a planning consent.

Paul Tyler: I, too, have planning experience and architectural experience. Has the hon. Gentleman noted that paragraph 27 records firm objections from English Heritage to a very modest incursion into Westminster Hall, which is quite insignificant compared with what is proposed in the report? We should anticipate that several bodies will take a close interest in the detailed design of the facilities, and I entirely endorse the hon. Gentleman's view that we must be very careful.

Andrew MacKinlay: To use the vernacular down in Thurrock, too damn right. In response to my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Luke), I was referring to paragraph 32, which rather glibly says that the developments will cost approximately 5 million but that there could be extra costs, for example relating to security. That is not the proper way in which to do business. I would not mind if this debate were like a First Reading, or was the first canvass of the ideas. I would welcome that, and say, Very good. The Minister and relevant Committees could then take cognisance of some of the things said here tonight. However, we are being asked to approve something now and almost to give a blank cheque to the suggestions.
	Equally, some Members might say, That's all very well, Mackinlay, but what are the alternatives? I recognise that we must address security, which I have acknowledged throughout my speech and earlier. There might well be some palliatives that could be explored. My hon. Friend the Member for West Ham has explored some matters that are worthy of consideration as temporary measures. I have made much of the marquees on the Terrace, but my complaint is that they are permanent; that sort of structure erected temporarily in the park adjacent to the Palace might be one possibility. My hon. Friend also rightly said that at some stage we must address ourselves to the wider campus around this place, including Parliament square, and consider whether that could be used. Again, that goes back to the need to look at the issues comprehensively, rather than study this report in isolation. If we had more space at the House's disposal, we could act much more sensitively.
	I was going to ask the Deputy Leader of the House this question but, cheekily, I shall ask the whole House: will Members put their hands up if they have ever been in the Jewel Tower? A couple of Members here have, but when I mentioned it to some distinguished hon. Members earlier today, they were aghast and did not know what I was talking about. The Jewel Tower is opposite Parliament. It is run by English Heritage and claims to house a parliamentary exhibition. I revisited it the other day, and was really quite embarrassed. English Heritage charges quite a lot for people to go in there and all there really is to see is Speaker Weatherill's gownwhich is very generous of him, to his creditand the gown worn by the Speaker at the state opening of Parliament. Our present Speaker must have donated that.
	Those exhibits are interesting, but aspects of that place relate to this report. First, the exhibition was generally disappointing and embarrassing, and although it is run by English Heritage, I think that that reflects badly on us. Secondly, the report refers to the long-term objective of having a heritage centre. The Jewel Tower does not have a lift in it and never will have, because it was built 1,000 years ago, but it occurred to me that it has some relevance to tonight's debate. We have a shortage of space and some people hereOfficers or Membersmight be prepared to do an accommodation swap. The tower is not an ideal place for the interpretive centre that we have discussed and it is extremely bland. I hope that you and others trot over there to see it later in the week, Madam Deputy Speaker, because you will share my disappointment. However, there is an opportunity to find some more space there through a trade-off.
	If we had control of Parliament square and its roads, that could be used at some stage for many of the facilities referred to in the report, including ticket offices.

David Lepper: I noted my hon. Friend's earlier comments about English Heritage. Will he clarify the point that he has now made about the Jewel Tower? He and other Members might have had the experience before entering this place of serving on planning committees of local authorities and finding that one problem with English Heritage, wonderful institution though it is, is that it has little concept of buildings as living entities in which people have to work. Therefore, the notion of the Jewel Tower being available as, if I have understood my hon. Friend correctly, office space for staff of this building, seems to be a non-starter so far as English Heritage is concerned.

Andrew MacKinlay: That is for another debate. All that I am telling the House is that there is a building over there that we need to look at in the context of this report. It claims to be a parliamentary exhibition, but it fails in that. If we were looking at this matter in totalityin the roundwe could explore such ideas.

Roger Gale: A few moment ago, the hon. Gentleman said to the House that he was being slightly mischievous, so let me be the same. Somewhere at home, my family has a picture of the Houses of Parliament without the spire over Central Lobby. We have that because my mother's kinsman was Charles Barry. This building was originally designed without what is, in fact, a chimney over Central Lobby. There are five floors of empty space up there that are totally unused.
	When we came to discuss the televising of this Housein my view, a major mistakewe looked at those five floors, but the heritage bodies said that we could not touch that chimney. It strikes me, as it might also strike my friend, the hon. Gentleman, as extraordinary that we are going down the road tonight of giving in effect carte blanche planning consent, if the motion passes, to a plan that has not been through the heritage bodies, given that they chose not to allow us to use the chimney.

Andrew MacKinlay: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for telling us that story, which illustrates a fact to which the Minister needs to be sensitive. The House behaves dreadfully on occasion. When it wants to pursue an end selfishly, it will ignore all the ground rules and consultations, but on other occasions it will embrace them. I am not going to sign up to that sort of behaviour. I did not know of that occurrence, but it underscores my point. I am certain that, when I go home tonight, when we have won the debate but lost the vote, I shall reflect on that as something that buttressed my point.

Simon Thomas: The paradox that we face is that the obvious places around the parliamentary estate that we could use not only for visitor facilities but for interpretive facilities for democracy, are out of bounds. Some of us have canvassed Parliament square as a suitable place for politicians and people to meet and hold discussions outside Parliament. Those areas are out of bounds precisely because of the rules, regulations and attitudes of the conservation bodies, including English Heritage, which force us back into the Royal Palace, where we have a free hand to do what we want. However, we are failing in two ways tonight. We are failing to take account of the wider heritage issues and we are not considering this matter as part of a wider strategic review of security.

Andrew MacKinlay: I entirely agree. Members who have visited the United States Congressthat is probably the majority of uswill have seen how the entire area has been dealt with from the point of view both of security and of access. A comparable area here would include Parliament Square and the related roads.
	There is another point that the Deputy Leader of the House and the Committee may have not considered. There is a BBC studio on the green by the Jewel Tower that is hardly ever used. Some trade-off could be arranged with the BBCI assume that it is the landlordin order to provide additional space in either the interim or the longer term. [Interruption.] To judge by the body language of the Deputy Leader of the House, he seems not to know where I am talking about, which is a pity, if I may say so. I hope that he will consider that idea.
	Paragraph 36 of the report refers to the long term and to the need for an exhibition space, accommodation for school parties, a bookshop, a ticket office, and a display area for artefacts and so on. I certainly sign up to that idea; indeed, it is my long-term dream to have such facilities here. My hon. Friend the Member for West Ham was slightly unfair to the little bookstall in St. Stephen's Hall. Even if all the proposals are passed tonight and adopted, that bookstall should endure. It is not only sympathetic to St. Stephen's Hall; by providing a welcome it fulfils a function that will still be needed. The lady who runs it is very innovative in terms of the small, relatively cheap but quality products that she sells, such as the postcards. I hope that, whatever else happens, that bookstall is sustained.

Paul Tyler: The hon. Gentleman is being very patient and I appreciate his courtesy. Has he noted that section 5 of the report, entitled The Longer Term, is not technically before the House? As the Deputy Leader of the House confirmed to me, we are in no way committed by tonight's motion to a wider, longer term, more elaborate and expensive scheme. It would be very misguided to go any further than what is a very limited scheme. If we are really to invest in making a better connection with those who send us hereI have had this discussion with the hon. Gentleman beforewe should invest in giving them much cheaper, more effective and wide-ranging electronic access, rather than spending a lot of money on a visitor centre. Section 5 is actually outwith this discussion.

Andrew MacKinlay: We are approving the report, so I think I am in order in discussing section 5, but the hon. Gentleman makes a valid point. I am in the rather privileged position of having constituents who are relatively close to the House of Commons, and I have a high visitor ratio. In the 12 years I have been here, I have had some 7,000 guests, all of whom I took to the little broom cupboard in the Chapel in St. Mary Undercroft, although not all at once. Constituents from North Cornwall, Glasgow, Rutherglen and many other places ought to have access to a virtual guided tour not instead of, but in addition to, the opportunity to come here, which I hope they do.
	Over the weekend, I visited the website of the United States CongressI had nothing else to doand looked at its various chambers. The website was extremely good, and I regret the fact that, at this stage, we do not have a comparable facility. So I take the point made by the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler). I do not want to rehearse my point about the bookstall in St. Stephen's Hall, but I implore the Chairman of the Committee to keep it, because it is extremely useful for a whole variety of reasons.

Marion Roe: I am afraid that the bookstall caused problems with English Heritage, which complained about its being there. We had to take that into account, so I hope that the hon. Gentleman does not think that it was removed on a whim. Unfortunately, pressure was put on us to have it removed.

Andrew MacKinlay: We seem to be talking at cross purposes. I am talking about the postcard stall in St. Stephen's Hall, which is mercifully still there today. I am simply saying, please do not remove it. The two ladies who have run it have been there virtually since the time of Barry.

Bob Spink: The hon. Gentleman allows me to pay tribute to Pat, who ran that little stall for 20 or 30 years until she retired only a couple of years ago. It is now run by someone who is equally sympathetic to the place.

Andrew MacKinlay: Pat and Freada stand there as custodians of the House, along with Grattan, Fox and the various people who have distinguished that Hall. I want them to stay.
	I understand that there is a parliamentary bookshop at 1 Parliament street. I am not sure who has the title deeds, but I think it is the Houses of Parliament. It is extraordinarily bland, and I would like to be let loose on the task of putting some attractive books and other artefacts in it. They would not only earn moneyI realise that that is not the primary objectivebut promote Parliament. The bookshop is simply not being used at the moment.

David Lepper: In view of the spotlight that my hon. Friend is casting on the bookstall that he loves and that we have all used, he might have averted the danger of our receiving a letter from English Heritage in the near future telling us that that bookshop is also out of order, as was the Westminster Hall bookshop to which the Chairman of the Select Committee referred[Interruption.]

Andrew MacKinlay: I do not know whether Members heard what one of my colleagues uttered from a sedentary position; doubtless it will not be recorded in the Official Report. In answer to the point that my hon. Friend makes, I shall deal with that problem when it comes. Just as Speaker Lenthall saw off Charles I in St. Stephen's Hall, so we will see off any such attempts in future.
	As you will remember, Madam Deputy Speaker, as you were present during the debate, my hon. Friend the Member for West Hamhe cannot be here tonightpainted a canvas describing the work that complements and helps interpret Parliament and its activities. He referred to the part of the report that calls for an interpretative centre, and I want to take this opportunity to compliment my hon. Friend on his initiative as Chairman of the Advisory Committee on Works of Art. He has done an extremely good job. I disagree with him on one or two details

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I do hope that the hon. Gentleman is not going to discuss those disagreements now, and that he will contain his remarks to the report before us.

Andrew MacKinlay: Absolutely, Madam Deputy Speaker. I shall contain my remarks to precisely those matters that you allowed my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham to refer to when you were in the Chair

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I have just given a ruling on what is happening before the House tonight.

Andrew MacKinlay: I did not mean to be discourteous, Madam Deputy Speaker. If I had my time again, I would frame my comment in a different way. I wanted to make only passing reference to matters that were discussed in that debate by my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham.

Eric Forth: The hon. Gentleman will know that the summary of the report states that
	we recognise the demands for a large-scale interpretative visitor centre.
	He will also know that on 22 April, during the opening part of this debate, the Deputy Leader of the House said that
	the Committees' reportfor which I hope the House is gratefulis part of a wider strategy of improving information about, and access to, the Palace of Westminster.[Official Report, 22 April 2004; Vol. 420, c. 509.]
	So all of what we are discussing is surely inextricably bound up with the ghastly further ambition to spend 15 million more.

Andrew MacKinlay: That is entirely my point. I was reading the relevant part of the Official Report over the weekend. During that debate, my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham said:
	We do not often get the opportunity to discuss the Advisory Committee on Works of Art.[Official Report, 22 April 2004; Vol. 420, c. 520.]
	He is absolutely right, although now is not the night to have that discussion. But I do hope that the Leader of the House will take note of the fact that some of us are interested in this building. The great work that is done by the various Committees should be discussed on a suitable occasion.

Greg Knight: Does the hon. Gentleman share my disappointment that some members of the Committee appear not to be interested in the future of this building, given that only about half are in their places listening to our debate? If we accept the recommendations listed on page 13, does the hon. Gentleman agree that it will not be without cost to our own space? The recommendations may look fairly anodyne, but hidden away in the report, it appears that we are to lose the use of Room W5, which is to be turned into a public lavatory. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman has ever had the difficulty that I have experienced in trying to book a room, but is it not a matter of deep regret that, if we accept the report, we will lose parliamentary space?

Andrew MacKinlay: The right hon. Gentleman raises the question of Westminster Hall as did my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham. I want to say that I am very catholic about that question. I have an open mind, but now is not the time to resolve how it should be. In fact, the W Rooms are not part of Westminster Hall. I believe that they date from 1888. Even after Pugin and Barry had created the wonderful building joining the mediaeval Westminster Hall, there stood, next to the place where Oliver Cromwell now stands, some quite attractive courtrooms, which were demolished with the opening of the courts elsewhere in London. Then within the buttresses of Westminster Hall were placed the W Rooms, the IPU Room and the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association Room. They are not part of the mediaeval building, but recent add-ons in the great sweep of things. They are nevertheless attractive and fulfil a utility.
	We are faced with a problem tonight because we are the custodians of important heritage buildings of which we are immensely proud at the same time as being a functioning democratic Parliament and legislature. That poses a great dilemma. I am pleased that the right hon. Member for East Yorkshire (Mr. Knight) mentioned the problem of space and reminded us that we will lose out from the proposals. We are rushing into things inappropriately without having a total development plan that combines and reflects all the constraints of heritage against utility.

Roger Gale: The hon. Gentleman has done his research very well: the W Rooms were indeed an add-on. We are talking about visitor facilities. I want to mention three parliamentary bodiesthe parliamentary armed forces scheme, the parliamentary police scheme and the industry and Parliament trustthat are all looking for accommodation within the parliamentary estate. If we are going down this road, surely priority should be given to those parliamentary bodies before we start sacrificing space in Westminster Hall.

Andrew MacKinlay: If it were within my giftif the Almighty suddenly deigned that I was in charge of these affairsthat is the sort of thing that I would take into cognisance, but alas the Almighty is not going to do that. The hon. Gentleman provides another illustration of factors that need to be taken into account. They are not going to be so taken into account because on the pink forms tomorrow we are going to sign up to the motion; that is what will bounce us through. Many people will be there who have not trespassed into the Chamber this evening. That is why, as I have already said, we will win the debate tonight and lose the vote. It is wrong. Even now, I hope that the Deputy Leader of the House might give at least some undertaking about a further period of consultation for MPs before any final decision is taken. We must have the opportunity to have some further input.
	My hon. Friend the Member for West Ham and other hon. Members have referred to the document's proposals for Westminster Hall. I take us on a virtual tour. At St. Stephen's Entrance there is going to be a new creation, which I believe is a mistake. It will be a pillboxno doubt a nice pillbox done in Gothic stylewhich I do not believe should be situated there. I invite hon. Members to look at the black and white drawing in the document. Someone is at the pillbox to give information and advice, and some paragraphs refer to the additional costs, but I believe that the pillbox is unnecessary. Furthermore, it is not aesthetically appealing and would not gain planning permission if it came before Westminster city council. We should look at that proposal again.
	If we go down the ramp, we go through security and into Westminster Hall. I ask the House to reflect on a particular point. One of the great attractions of Westminster Hall is the great door. Under the proposals, it will be permanently openso not seenand there will be a new glass construction put in its place. It is necessary, so we are told in the report, if large volumes of people are coming through. I view the effective removal of the door as an outrage. It is a profound mistake. The beauty of looking back down the Hall from the place where Charles I was tried lies in the wonderful door. It makes me cross: the door should stay there.
	I disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham in his enthusiasm about how Westminster Hall should be used and what people should see if the proposal goes through tonight. I get an enormous thrill going through Westminster HallI know that other hon. Members dobecause of its emptiness. It is the most wonderful, beautiful covered open space that exists in London. If we leave late at night when just the emergency lighting is on, it takes on a new beauty in its darkness. I want to preserve that, but the report talks about having new additional lighting. What a profound and foolish mistake that isand what an outrage that it is in the report before us tonight.

David Lepper: I have was impressed by the historical detail and research in the earlier part of my hon. Friend's speech this evening. However, does he agreeperhaps I am wrongthat the emptiness of Westminster Hall is, in view of the long history of that part of the parliamentary estate, a fairly recent phenomenon? For most of its existence, it has been thriving with a throng of people visiting this place. Among other things, it was once a market. I understand my hon. Friend's wish to preserve, but he may be trying to preserve a relatively recent part of the history of the Houses of Parliament.

Andrew MacKinlay: I do not sign up to that. The same point was uttered in the earlier part of our debate that took place on 22 April. Of course Samuel Pepys records the stalls and marketing activities that went on. That is a matter of fact. However, if we take the sweep of 1000 years of history, Westminster Hall has functioned mainly as a public hall. I cannot prove it, but I believe that for most of its life, it has been a place of utility for the state of the day. It has mainly fulfilled public functions. Occasionally, it has been used for other functions, but they have not been its main purpose. St. Mary Undercroft was used for stables during the Cromwellian period and as a rather nice Speaker's banqueting hall right up to 1834. However, its primary function was as a place of worship. To their credit, Pugin and Barry returned it to that purpose, and we are the beneficiaries. Westminster Hall has fulfilled various official, political and constitutional functions. That means it is often empty and uncluttered, as it is this afternoon. I do not want there to be more clutter in there.
	My hon. Friend the Member for West Ham spoke about exhibitions in the Hall, a matter that is also covered in the report. It is a question of degree. If the motion is approved, I could livealbeit reluctantlywith occasional exhibitions using stands that are sensitive to the surroundings. However, I think that many hon. Members will have been concerned about two recent exhibitions.
	About a year ago, the content of an exhibition about political cartoons was superb and compelling, but the structure used was inappropriate. The more recent exhibition of photographs was in place for a long time. I am all for photographic exhibitions, but that one was a dreadful blot on the landscape. It looked like a trade exhibition, and was wholly inappropriate for the guests who come here from all around the world. I urge the relevant Committees to be sensitive to this matter, in the immediate period and in the long term. Exhibitions in Westminster Hall should be held sparingly, and the stands used should be appropriate.
	I have detained the House for some time, but I have been accepting interventions. I urge the Chairman of the Administration Committee, the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Mrs. Roe), and the Minister to reflect on what I have said. The mood of those hon. Members who have intervened indicates that there is a powerful case for some reflection on the proposals. I am sure that hon. Members could find a way to revisit some of these matters. We need greater consultation in respect of security aspects and the long-term ambitions for this wonderful building, in which we are privileged to live and work.

Roger Gale: The hon. Gentleman has done the House a great service in illustrating the tensions between the title of the debateVisitor Facilitiesand the underlying security concerns that are of such great interest to us all. With that in mind, I beg to move, That the House sit in private.

Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 163 (motion to sit in private):
	The House divided: Ayes 9, Noes 184.

Question accordingly negatived.

Marion Roe: I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak to the motion approving the joint report of the Administration Committee and the Accommodation and Works Committee. As hon. Members will be aware, I was unfortunately away on parliamentary business when the motion was first debated on 22 April, and I am very grateful to the Chairman of the Accommodation and Works Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Derek Conway), who made such a valuable contribution on behalf of both Committees on that occasion.

Oliver Heald: My hon. Friend will know that I spoke on that occasion, before the debate was adjourned, and paid tribute to her and her Committee for their hard work on the report.

Marion Roe: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend for his kind comments.
	I am also grateful to my colleagues on both Committees for the assiduous way in which they have tackled the whole subject. There was a helpful spirit of co-operation, not only between members of my Committee, which I have come to expect since I became its Chairman, but also between members of both Committees. The proposals in our report will be a joint resource with the House of Lords. We are grateful to members of the House of Lords Information Committee and of the Administration and Works Committee for their constructive comments and support.
	I have listened carefully to the remarks made by the hon. Member for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay). He certainly covered a great deal of ground during his speech, and I wish to pick up one or two points that he made, as some clarification may be helpful. He mentioned paragraph 32 of the report, which says:
	This figure does not take into account the effects of inflation or the cost of any additional related security works required once consultations with security and heritage bodies have been completed.
	Consultations have startedit is not a question of their having yet to startand they will certainly continue until we have confirmed all the details of the final design. I hope that I can put his mind at rest about the fact that the consultations are ongoing and thorough.
	May I draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to paragraph 21, where we refer to exactly how the proposed new building will look, and say that it will be
	single storey, with a flat roof at the Cromwell Green level
	and so on? The last sentence of that paragraph states:
	We are aware of the sensitivity of the site and recognise that the eventual design will need to be appropriate for its surroundings.
	I want to confirm to him that both my Committee and the Accommodation and Works Committee are very anxious to ensure that whatever is put into or attached to this building certainly does not intrude and certainly enhances not just the facilities, but the scene.

Andrew MacKinlay: I do not say this facetiously, but what the hon. Lady saysof course, I take it in good faith, as I do with the Committees' motivesis what everyone who makes a planning application tells any local planning authority, and they mean it, but sometimes we have to act quasi-judicially and look at things in the round. Her intentions are fineI fully accept thembut we ought at least to look at the final proposal when the consultations have been completed, so that we can see the sympathetic cladding materials.

Marion Roe: I have heard what the hon. Gentleman has said. Such things will take time, there will be consultations, and I can assure him that no one, certainly on my Committee, would wish to stop colleagues, on whichever side of the House they sit, having an input into ensuring that the facilities are appropriate and fulfil their role.

Greg Knight: I associate myself with my hon. Friend's remarks about the hard work done by the members of the two Committees, but it is a pity that they could not all be bothered to turn up for tonight's debate. For the avoidance of all doubt, will she confirm to the House that although the recommendations on page 13 are strangely silent about this, the report, if accepted, would involve the loss of Room W5 to Members?

Marion Roe: Yes, I confirm that, but if my right hon. Friend will allow me to continue my remarks a little further, I shall explain why we feel that that is necessary, and I hope that he will understand the points that I make.
	Our Committees' proposal would improve the access facilities for visitors and increase security. Our report is centred on one major recommendation: a new reception and security building should be built at the north end of Cromwell Green and the west side of the Jubilee caf. The proposed new building would replace St. Stephen's entrance, as the main entry point for visitors to both Houses.
	The Houses of Parliament receive at least 400,000 visitors a year. As our report makes clear, they visit for many different reasons. For example, some visit the Galleries of each House or attend Select Committee sittings. Some come to lobby their Members of Parliament or to take part in mass lobbies. Others come for official dinners or to meet staff of the two Houses. People wish to come to the House of Commons for a variety of reasons.
	Currently, most non-pass holders enter through St. Stephen's entrance, where they and their belongings are searched. Many hon. Members will share my Committee's long-standing concern that that arrangement is unsatisfactory. We have all seen the long queues that sometimes build up on the pavement outside, a particularly unwelcome sight when it is cold and wet. The limited space at St. Stephen's entrance means that there is insufficient space to offer visitors much information about what is happening in the Chambers or the Committees. The present arrangements are also inadequate from a security perspective, as was highlighted at the end of last year, when security equipment had to be moved outside into a temporary marquee.

Eric Forth: I am rather intrigued by that argument. Is there any evidence that people are put off visiting the Palace of Westminster because of the present arrangements? We hear pitiful stories about people waiting in queues and standing cold and shivering in the rain, but I have never had the impression that that has deterred people from coming here. In fact, it may make them appreciate it more when they get in.

Marion Roe: Even if it does not deter them, we should offer a slightly more welcoming atmosphere for people coming here. We are not offering them a warm welcome if they have to queue in the rain and cold. My Committee feels strongly about that, and has supported for some time the view that we should do more to welcome visitors. As we state in our report:
	Our visitors are the electors of the present and the future, or those who come from abroad to visit one of the most important and historic sites in the United Kingdom.
	We could and should do more to welcome visitors and provide them with information to help make their visit more memorable. If that aim can be achieved while, at the same time, enhancing security and easing the burden on our security staff, we should seize the opportunity to do so.
	I shall explain briefly why my Committee believes that the proposed new building would help to achieve those two important objectives. I shall also try to address the concerns of hon. Members who have reservations about the effect of our proposals on the Palace and the work of Parliament, and who are afraid that they represent the thin end of the wedge. Conversely, other hon. Members believe that we have not gone far enough, so I shall explain why I think we have struck the right balance.
	Under our proposal, visitors would enter the new building by means of a ramp leading down from St. Stephen's entrance along the inside of the wall separating Cromwell Green from the pavement. It would be wide enough to make arrangements to fast-track Members' guests or people attending meetings with Members. Visitors would then enter the new building, where they would pass through the security machines. There would be space for three search machines, as opposed to the existing two at St. Stephen's entrance, which would reduce the time that visitors have to wait before entering the building. From the new building they would walk alongside the Jubilee caf and enter the Palace through the north door of Westminster Hall. A visitor's first view of the inside of the Palace would therefore be the magnificent sight of Westminster Hall, which would be enhanced as it would be free of the unsightly security equipment that currently stands at the south end of the Hall.
	There are other advantages to the proposal, as we outline in part 4 of our report. The new arrangements would greatly reduce the need for visitors to queue outside and, importantly, there would be a great improvement in the access arrangements for disabled visitors. Currently, disabled visitors have to enter the Palace separately from other visitors because of the steps in St. Stephen's Hall. Under the proposed arrangements, however, they would be able to enter down the ramp with everybody else, then continue to their destination, as now, via one of the lifts off Westminster Hall. That would definitely be an improvement for certain guests coming to the Palace of Westminster.
	I should point out that the proposed new arrangements are strongly supported by the police and senior security staff of both Houses and are based on the best current security advice. The new building would provide a dedicated building outside the main Palace for security checks. That would be a significant improvement from a security perspective. It is important that visitors can be searched outside the main building, and the location below street level has also been approved by security experts.

Andrew MacKinlay: Just a small pointat present anyone who is disabled or in a wheelchair must come in through New Palace Yard and the north door of Westminster Hall. There is no appreciable difference in the proposals being outlined.

Marion Roe: At present, disabled visitors must leave the party that they are with, whereas under the new arrangements they would all be able to come in through the same entrance. In Westminster Hall they would be guided to a lift. I believe that these arrangements would be more acceptable, and from the soundings that have been taken, disabled groups believe they would be an improvement for their supporters.
	I shall try to reassure hon. Members about what the proposals do not include. They do not affect the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association and Inter-Parliamentary Union rooms, nor are there plans for them to be used in the future. The smallest W meeting room will be converted to extend the ladies lavatories, but the four main meeting rooms will not be affected and will continue to be available as valuable meeting rooms for Members. The proposals are modest and should not affect the work of Parliament.
	In reply to my right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire (Mr. Knight), I should say that there have been complaints from visitors to the House about the lack of facilities, and it was therefore thought appropriate that the opportunity should be taken to improve the facilities for ladies lavatories.
	When we were first asked to look into the matter by the House of Commons Commission, the consultants who had been engaged by the House proposed a full-scale interpretative visitor centre in Westminster Hall. I am sure that we all recall the reaction to those proposals. They would have involved significant disruption and changes to the use of the rooms off Westminster Hall. The proposals, as I said, met significant opposition and we did not support them. In our report we clearly say that we did not support the proposals. We state in the summary that
	we recognise the demands for a large-scale interpretative visitors centre. We support this concept but believe that this is not feasible within the Palace of Westminster, and therefore recommend that suitable accommodation outside the building be sought.
	I hope that allays any fears on that score. I believe that we are supporting the main view of Members.

Paul Tyler: I very much respect the work that the hon. Lady and her Committee do. Can she take the opportunity to make it clear to the House this evening, as the Deputy Leader of the House did in response to me earlier, that if the House approves the motion, we are not approving the long-term section on page 12, which appears to commit the House to a very expensive and elaborate interpretation centre, when many of us feel it would be a much better use of the House's limited resources to make sure that more members of our electorate can access the House electronically? It is rather confusing that the motion before the House is in two parts. We are asked to approve the joint report, but we are asked to endorse only the immediate proposals for the new reception and security building. Will the hon. Lady please clarify for the House that as far as her Committee is concerned, we are endorsing only the latter proposal, not the wider long-term proposal?

Marion Roe: I fully support the hon. Gentleman's comments on the matter. As he will see, the title of the report is Access to Parliament. That is what we are approving today. I hope that everybody appreciates that we will have a different debate about what will follow and where any interpretative centre will be located in the future. There will be serious consultations among colleagues and elsewhere on any proposal that might come forward on that.

Greg Knight: May I make two points to my hon. Friend? First, in any further view that she and her Committee take on providing a full-blown visitor centre, will she rule out placing it in the parliamentary estate as the parliamentary estate currently exists, because room is simply not available? Secondly, if she is looking for a candidate building to use as a visitor centre, will she examine the Middlesex court building on the other side of Parliament square? A court has no need whatsoever to be situated on Parliament square, and we should take it over and use it as a visitor centre.

Marion Roe: I have listened carefully to my right hon. Friend's suggestion. We will, of course, examine all facilities, but my Committee discussed the issue and concluded that it is not feasible to locate a visitor centre within the Palace of Westminster because space is not available, and I am sure that all hon. Members in the Chamber agree with that decision.
	Sufficient space is also not available to hold exhibitions on the work and role of Parliament, which many hon. Members in the Chamber feel is an important part of welcoming visitors. The first page of the report, which I read out, makes it clear that the Committee supports the concept of a full-scale interpretive visitor centre, which I feel should be sited outside the main building. Such a proposal clearly requires much more work, and the officials who supported the Committee on the current proposals and for whose work we are very grateful will now examine the options outside the Palace. When the Committee has considered those options and feels that it has done enough work for the House to take a view, it will, of course, report again.
	The more difficult issues associated with a visitor centre should not delay progress on the new reception and security building, on which there is every reason for a consensus across the House. A new reception and security building would be an important step in improving access facilities for visitors and would represent a significant improvement in how we treat visitors and provide information to them.
	The final section of the report sets out that my Committee is committed to examining options for other facilities. However, I stress again that the development of a full-scale visitor centre within the Palace of Westminster is not proposed. I put that point on the record and hope that everybody accepts my confirmation of it.

Stephen Pound: The hon. Lady is being typically generous in giving way. This point may seem minor, but it means a lot to many of us: if the new visitor centre is built, will we have seen the last of the baleful presence of the malefic Oliver in the form of that statue? The green could be renamed Prince Rupert of the Rhine green orthis is my personal preferenceCharles Stuart green.

Marion Roe: I note the hon. Gentleman's point. My Committee has not considered the matter, and it would not be appropriate to make pledges to him about such a suggestion. However, my colleagues and I can read his comment in Hansard and reach a view in due course.
	The proposal will improve access facilities for visitors. The plans in the report will hopefully form phase 1, and phase 2 will not be within the Palace of Westminster. I trust that the House will enable progress to be made on our modest proposals, which should meet the important twin objectives of making visitors feel more welcome and improving security. As other hon. Members said, this is not our Houseand it belongs to the people who give us the right to sit in it. We should do all that we can to welcome visitors while minimising disruption to Parliament's work and taking into account security issues. Our joint report sets out our proposals that meet those aims, and I urge the House to support them.

David Lepper: I shall be brief. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay), who generously gave way several times earlier in the debate. I congratulate the hon. Members for Broxbourne (Mrs. Roe) and for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Conway) and members of their Committees on their work in producing the report. I have the honour of chairing the Select Committee on Broadcasting, which considered these proposals at the beginning of last year when they were in a much earlier form and based on the notion of a fully-fledged visitor centre. Committee members of all parties endorsed the principle of a visitor centre and the improved access to this House that would form part of it. The proposals that are before us today, although limited in terms of those earlier considerations, are about access and security. They are in line with the first part of the priority that the House of Commons Commission agreed in June 2002to improve access to and understanding of Parliamentand they are worthy of support for all the reasons that the hon. Member for Broxbourne presented.
	None of us has any way of knowing whether having to stand outside St. Stephen's entrance in whatever weather is a deterrent or an inducement to people who want to come in to see the work of Parliament or to visit these buildings. Clearly, people are prepared to stand outside whatever the weather, but they should not have to. There should be better facilities for those who want to come in to see us at work in this Chamber or in Committees Upstairs, or just to see the architecture of the building. It is plain common sense to improve access to this place as the report suggests, and a simple courtesy to our electors to ensure that they get a better welcome.
	Although I accept and endorse the comments of the hon. Member for Broxbourne, I hope that the wider and fuller concept of a visitor centre will not be forgotten and that her Committee and other Committees will go on to explore how that can be provided, thereby fulfilling the other part of the Commission's priorityto improve understanding of Parliament.
	The hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) talked about improving understanding and access electronically. That is important. We now have, although it is limited at the moment, the webcasting of Parliament. Almost day by daycertainly, year by yearwe have improvements in the technology that gives people access to what is going on here, even though they may be many miles away. I would say two things about that. First, it will never be a replacement for wanting to visit the House of Commons and the House of Lords to see them in reality. Virtual reality will never satisfy everyone, nor should it.
	Secondly, I hope that when the hon. Members for Broxbourne and for Old Bexley and Sidcup and their Committees consider the wider issue of the visitor centre, they will bear in mind a point that has already been made to the hon. Lady's Committee by members of my Committeethat the broadcasting of Parliament, including the relaying of what is happening at the time and the archive material that is available, should play an essential role in the visitor centre. I ask the hon. Lady to give cognisance to my Committee's wish to have some involvement in the future planning of a visitor centre.

Paul Tyler: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. I appreciate the very thoughtful contribution that he is making. I hope that his Committee will accept that, in terms of value for money, a comparatively small investment made now could result in major improvements, comparable with those made in legislative assemblies in other parts of the world. While his constituents can come here and see us at work relatively easily, the constituents of those of us who come from further afield have much greater difficulty in doing so. It is important for young people, particularly during their school years, to have the opportunity to see Parliament at work electronically when they cannot possibly visit these buildings.

David Lepper: I would certainly agree with the hon. Gentleman about the important educational function of being able to watch the proceedings of this place on television, via the internet or by some other means that might become available in the near future. However, the fact remains that people come from far afield to visit these buildings and to see what goes on inside them. That will always be the case, and I want us to guard against the notion that technological advance might make it preferable to watch what is going on here over the internet or by some other similar means, rather than by coming here to see Parliament at work. I accept much of what the hon. Gentleman has said, however.
	I support the proposals before us, but I hope that the hon. Member for Broxbourne will be able to give the House assurances about the involvement of members of my Committee in any future planning of proposals for a visitor centre.

Eric Forth: This is the wrong proposal at the wrong time. It is what the Americans call a boondoggle, and it really is time that it was exposed. I follow very much the arguments of the hon. Member for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay), but I want first to pick up on why I think that the proposal is being made at the wrong time.
	We find ourselves in an odd position because, on the one hand, the Leader of the House, no less, has said that there will be a
	wide-ranging security review that the Speaker has ordered, with my support and that of the House of Commons Commission.
	Well, I suppose that makes it all right, then. The Leader of the House has announced a wide-ranging review of security, which I think that we all agree is timely and necessary. But before that review has reported, we are now being asked to give our approval to a proposal based on a security argument. So we are in the absurd position of being told that this proposal is about security, when we have not yet reached the completion of the wide-ranging security review announced by the Leader of the House. That strikes me as somewhat eccentricI shall put it no more strongly than that. The timing of the proposal is therefore completely wrong. It is premature, and it will make a nonsense of the security review.
	The other anomalous position is illustrated by the statement of the Deputy Leader of the House that the report
	is part of a wider strategy of improving information about, and access to, the Palace of Westminster.
	He went on to say that
	the Government regard the reception building very much as the first stage. We hope that we will be able to build consensus on proposals for a proper visitor and education centre, with space for exhibitions interpreting our work, for the reception of school parties, and perhaps for a book and souvenir shop.[Official Report, 22 April 2004; Vol. 420, c. 466, 509512.]
	What we are being asked to approve here is simply phase one of an overall project, and we are being asked to do it in a detached way. So in two respects, first in terms of security and second in terms of the overall vision of those who see this place as a theme parkI shall come back to that in a momentwe are again being asked to look at only part of the argument.  We are therefore embarking on a debate based on a partial and premature approach.
	Paragraph 2 includes the contention that
	across the UK there are many people who are keen to be more closely involved in Parliament's work but who are not currently engaged.
	Members of Parliament are very taken with such contentions, which we like to hear because they make us all feel better about ourselves, but I do not know what evidence exists for that contention. I suspect that it is simply regarded as self-evident but I am not sure that it is true that many people are keen to be more closely involved in Parliament's work. The philosophical basis and thrust of the report is in doubt from the start, because simply stating a contention does not make it true although we are often fond of that approach. Doubt arises immediately about our motivation.
	Paragraph 3 contains a phrase that I find somewhat more attractive and refers to
	recognising that the Palace of Westminster is primarily a place of work and public access should not impinge on that work.
	That is a welcome statement. For some time I have worried about the danger that, as we do less and less useful work in the House of Commons because the Government have throttled it and give Members fewer and fewer opportunities to do their job, we will turn the place into a theme park. We are telling people, Come and sit behind a glass Screen. Even more absurdly, we are saying, Come and parade silently along while we do our business here in the Chamber because visiting the building and seeing what happens here is subtly and gradually becoming more important than what we do in it. Again, that is an underlying but unstated part of what we are asked to approve this evening.
	The report is all about making the place more welcoming to visitors rather than thinking more seriously about what we do in the Palace of Westminster. That bothers me because it shows a mindset that is becoming all too common among Members of Parliament and our esteemed establishment figures. They believe that much more emphasis should be placed on lavatories and ramps without displaying much concern about the fact that increasingly fewer Members attend or are able to carry out their duties.
	Earlier today, we had a drastically truncated debate in which we were sadly unable to complete our scrutiny of an important Bill. That passed almost without comment. We usher more and more visitors through the building to watch us doing less and less effective work. That is an odd view of the parliamentary process but it appears to motivate an increasing amount of what we do. I find that sad and wish that we would resist it.

Roger Gale: Would my right hon. Friend like to reflect on the number of people who pack the Public Gallery on some occasions and the relatively few people who packif that is the right wordany Galleries in Select Committee hearings and especially Standing Committee sittings? In the context of a debate on public access, will he further reflect on the fact that our Standing Committees are not even televised?

Eric Forth: My hon. Friend typically makes an incisive point. Again, I am not aware of any reflection upon it. Hon. Members often cite important Committee work Upstairs as an alibi for not being in the Chamber. Those of us who are part of the secret society know that that is sometimes true but that it is often not exactly true. The proof of that pudding would be to ask why we are not spending much more time and attention on greater and better access for the public to what some would regard as our real work in both Standing and Select Committees instead of ushering them through ridiculous pieces of glass and funny corridors to see an ever emptier Chamber. Such questions are not asked because we are probably rather afraid of the answer to the question of why we are here on fewer and fewer occasions. So, the whole thrustthe whole philosophybehind the report is flawed. The assumptions made and the underpinnings should be seriously questioned.
	It gets worse, because when we consider the financial aspects we are entitled to become slightly ashamed of ourselves. Here we are, posturing and posing as the custodians of the taxpayers' purse, and scrutinising in the House of Commons the amount of money that the wicked Government are spending. Indeed the Government are wicked and indeed they spend far too muchlet there be no doubt about thatbut when do we gaze at our own financial navels? The answer is all too rarely.
	The real truth is that there are effectively no constraints on expenditure by the House of Commons on itself. In that, we are disgracefully self-indulgent. We have before us a very good example of it, because here we are, quietly and unobtrusively voting ourselves what paragraph 32 of the report coyly refers to as
	in the region of 5 million.
	That is not much money if we say it fairly quickly, and I am sure that the taxpayers will not mind it being lavished on what the Chairman of the Administration Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Mrs. Roe), referred to in her charming way as their Parliament. Whether that is how people see it I leave to others to judge.
	So, 5 million is involved. Well, no it is not, because the report then says, semi-honestly:
	This figure does not take into account the effects of inflation or the cost of any additional related security works required once consultations with security and heritage bodies have been completed.
	That is the point that was made so effectively by the hon. Member for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay). This is a pig in a pokeanother blank cheque that we are being asked to sign. The figure is not 5 million at all. It might not even be
	in the region of 5 million.
	It says here in the report that the
	figure does not take into account . . . consultations
	yet to come. Then it says, with almost charming transparency:
	The final figure is therefore likely to be higher.
	How much higher we do not know. Could it be just 1 million higher, or twice that? Could it be, following the pattern of the Scottish parliamentary building, 10 times the current estimate? We do not know, but we are being asked this evening to give our approval.
	As you know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, we are in fact not being asked to give our approval this evening, because in the final disgrace to the ParliamentI am ashamed to admit itwe will not be asked to vote on the measure this evening. We will be asked to come back tomorrow. No doubt several hundred colleagues will vote, in that disgrace called the deferred Division, on something of which they have little knowledge due to the fact that they have not bothered to be here to take part in the debate.
	Who knows, but maybe even the Prime Minister will vote tomorrow, because the deferred Division will be staged at a time convenient to him, when he happens to pay his once-a-week visit to this place to answer questions. Rather conveniently, he will be able to nip through the Lobby immediately afterwards to cast his vote on a ballot paper for the deferred Division, not having been here for the debate. I do not particularly blame him for that, because, sadly, nearly every other Member of the House shares in it, as it happens.
	So, colleaguesthose guardians of the taxpayerwill waltz through the Division Lobby and put their name on a bit of paper tomorrow to sign away at least 5 million of their constituents' money, probably with very little knowledge of where it is going. That is for them, not us here at present, to answer for.
	We do not know how much this measure will cost. That is the conclusion we draw from the report.

Roger Gale: My right hon. Friend is generous in giving way. There are some 17 Members in the Chamber, which at 9.23 on such a night is not bad, because normally nobody would be here at all as the House would not be sitting. Will he invite the Minister to place on record his view of the cost, so that before Members vote on paper tomorrow there will at least be for the record a clear Government statement of the expected cost? I suspect that, in years to come when the bill is finally delivered, the Minister might not wish to take responsibility for that reply.

Eric Forth: All I can say to my hon. Friend is, In your dreams. That will not happen, although I admire his gall in asking for it. By the by, I wonder, as he probably does, where are the 180 or so Members who just a short time ago went through the Division Lobby to deny us sitting in private? They have all disappeared somewhere, very strangely. They were all in the building not long ago, but they have not seen fit to remain here in the Chamber. That, however, is a matter for another day.
	I will not prolong my contributionI could expand considerably on the matter, Mr. Deputy Speaker, as you know me well enough to realiseas I want to leave time for my hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Bob Spink) in particular to make his contribution, and there is at least one Labour Member who also wants to speak. I am sure that time will properly be allowed for everyone to make their contributions, since the Order Paper usefully tells us, as will have caught your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that this debate can continue until any hour. That is appropriate. This is a House of Commons matter. There is no urgency about it, and no need to curtail the debate. It is subject to a deferred Division, so, sadly, Members need not wait to vote.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. With great respect to the right hon. Gentleman, he should prejudge nothing and regard the Standing Orders in their totality.

Eric Forth: That is what I feared, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I shall be watching to see Government Whips hovering near you and whispering in your shell-like any time from about now onwards. Sadly, I suspectwhispers have reached methat the Government may try to close this debate down. Perhaps they are so ashamed of the amount of money being spent that even they would not approve of it. Let us see how events unwind. Certainly, I do not want to be a party on this occasion, although I am always happy to be on others, to going into the matter in great detail.
	Unusually swiftly, I shall move on to paragraph 34 on the revenue implications. We have found out, have we not, that we have no idea what the capital cost will be, so let us see if we know any more about the revenue costs, as the taxpayer will pick up that bill too. The paragraph states that the consultantsoh dear, I always worry when I see that word
	estimate that the staffing of the new information point near St. Stephen's Entrance and the extra searching capacity of the new building would require additional staffthree full-time posts for the kiosk, and six full-time posts of security officers for the search points. This gives a total increase in revenue costs of 200,000 per annum.
	One would have thought that that was all right, and that now we will know something of what it will cost. It goes on to say, however:
	Some extra costs would also be incurred for lighting and heating, staffing an information desk in Westminster Hall, and for the production of information material.
	I would have thought that it was not beyond the wits of men, and even beyond the wits of consultants, to give us some idea of what that might cost. I am rather disappointed that my colleagues in the Committee have not sought further information to offer to the House in asking us to approve this expenditure.

Paul Tyler: There are two other aspects of revenue costs to which the right hon. Gentleman might like to turn his attention. I had hoped that there might be savings involved in the proposals, because we could get rid of the dreadful building that is put up temporarily on the green to accommodate those visiting the House to take the line of route during the recessI do not know whether he has noticed it. I was told in the previous debate, however, that that was not likely to be the case. Secondly, I wonder whether he would like to look at paragraph 26, which states:
	Contingency arrangements would need to be made for those periods when Westminster Hall is closed, for example, in preparation for, and during, formal occasions involving both Houses of Parliament, such as the presentation of Addresses. This is likely to involve putting temporary security facilities back into St. Stephen's Entrance.
	Of course, that will also incur cost.

Eric Forth: In one sense, the hon. Gentleman has been here longer than I have, and he must know as well as I do that expecting anybody to find savings in this place is a dream. I am amazed that he has even thought that consideration would be given to savings. I would have thought that saving taxpayers' money in today's House of Commons was a most unlikely outcome, certainly from this debate. I share his aspiration but, sadly, that is not the mood of the moment. We are in spending mode right now, and we are spraying money around pretty generously.
	Some extra costs would therefore also be incurred for all the matters that the poor old consultants were unable to pin down for us. I am grateful that the hon. Gentleman has drawn the attention of the House to paragraph 26, because it almost belies a lot of the arguments that have been put to us this evening about the virtues of what we are being asked to agree. In spite of the fact that we will have all these wonderful new facilities, it would appear, for those periods in which Westminster Hall is closed, as he has just quoted, that we will incur further cost to put back temporary security facilities at St. Stephen's entrance.
	We can do a bit of reminiscing. We can be a bit nostalgic, remembering what it used to be like in the good old days. Having spent at least 5 million, with revenue costs of at least 200,000an unspecified sumwe shall be asked to spend even more, because the old facilities will have to be put back.
	This is a sad little episode. It reveals all too much about us, our attitude to these matters and our casual expenditure of taxpayers' money. I regret all that. I think the whole thing is unnecessary, ill-conceived and premature. I think that in the light of the so-called security review, this is a partial answer to a comprehensive problem. I wish it were not happening, but I suspect that the troops will march through the Lobby tomorrow. Only partly aware of what they are voting for, they will fill in their little pink or yellow slipsor whatever they are these daysand the matter will be concluded. But we will fight the battle again, as we shall have to, when another amountthe last figure I saw was 15 millionis proposed for the ludicrous theme-park-style interpretative centre that has been mentioned a number of times. When that day comes, we will fight the battle all over again.

Iain Luke: As a member of the Administration Committee, I think it right to stand up and put the arguments. There has been a good deal of criticism of people who allegedly do not speak up for the decisions they make in Committees. I think it only right for us to discuss these matters tonight, for this is an important decision which, in my view, will bring advantages.
	I am happy to support the Chairman of the Administration Committee, the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Mrs. Roe). It has been suggested that we have not considered specific planning or finance issues, but in fact we have considered many of them in detail. I pay tribute to the hon. Lady, who has handled this in a detailed and comprehensive fashion.
	Obviously, some of our conclusions will not be agreed to. Whatever they were, they would not be agreed to, especially when we have suggested progress. But we have proceeded in a very positive manner and we have tried to make the House more attractive to the public. Some of the report's terminology may be high-flown, as the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) suggested, but the ideal is there. We want to make the House more accessible, and I think that our proposals will achieve that.

Roger Gale: In his opening remarks, the hon. Gentleman suggested that the Committee had considered all matters. In a very informative speech, the hon. Member for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay) suggested first that this constituted, effectively, carte blanche planning consent for whatever course was chosen, and secondly that the heritage interests had not been fully consulted, or given their approval. Is the hon. Gentleman saying categorically that the heritage interests have approved the plans?

Iain Luke: As I told my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay), I was given the impressionthe outline section of the report refers to thisthat there had been continuing discussions with the planning authorities involved, and that they had indicated their happiness with the way in which things were progressing. The heritage issue was raised in the Committee, at both joint and separate sessions, and I am led to believe that there has been ongoing consultation. It is not complete because the final article has not been arrived at, but it will continue.
	I served on a planning committee for some time, and on a development control committee. One of the issues that emerged was that of planning gain. The new entrance from Cromwell Green to Westminster Hall through the big doors will free the entrance to St. Stephen's Hall. As I remember it, the comment made on that was that in planning terms, it would be a gain because it would remove the clutter of the security arrangements there.

Stephen Pound: Section 106?

Iain Luke: I am not sure whether the section is the same in English as in Scottish planning law.
	There are advantages, and it is my impression that there have been discussions on these issues.

Roger Gale: I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who is generous in giving way more than once, but he has just said that that is his impression, and he is a member of the Committee. What we are going to endorsenot tonight, but on pink paper tomorrowis a detailed planning consent, but the hon. Gentleman says that discussions are ongoing. If the House votes for this project tomorrow, that will be it and discussions will not be relevant.

Iain Luke: In technical terms, we are at the very early stages. There is an outline planning application, and once we have approved it, the final details will have to be approved by the appropriate authorities. If the heritage bodies say that they will not go with the plans, I believe that they can effectively pull the plug at that stage.

Andrew MacKinlay: If only what my hon. Friend hopes were true. The fact is that the fine art commission said that the tents on the Terrace could stay there provided that they were removed every year. They were removed every year until someone deliberately forgot. We flouted and totally disregarded the very body that my hon. Friend is referring to.

Iain Luke: I appreciate the point that my hon. Friend makes, and I know that he is very knowledgeable on these issues. I have heard of the background to the erection of the marquees, and if the rules or stipulations made by the heritage bodies have been flouted, the House authorities should look at that seriously.
	As I have said, we are talking about a positive change, and I hope that people will see it in a positive light. In supporting the proposals, there are issues that we must look at fully, and points will be made in opposition that also have relevance. At the end of the day, the decision must be balanced. I think that the plans are a logical extension of the process of modernisation of the House. Perhaps that upsets people, but this House has to modernise. We have to move on. I spoke in the debate on the modernisation proposals that came before the House. Many people see the House as a quaint museum or even a theme park, as has been mentioned, but it is in fact a body of unique relevance to the life of the United Kingdom, and we should bring it into a modern mode of working.
	There is a whole issue over the way in which people connect and engage with this Parliament. Although fewer hon. Members were present when I looked around earlier, I think that I can still say that I represent the most northern constituency of any Member in his place tonight. I have constituents who come a long way to visit here, and I want to ensure that they have the best possible experience. It is a long way from Dundee to Westminster, and often the railways do not work properly, the motorways are crowded or aeroplanes are grounded. When my constituents finally arrive, I want to see them dealt with in a smooth, modern fashion. That is what they expect once they have gained access to this building.
	A point has been made about the detriment to the Westminster Hall entrance if people come in from that side of the building, but I think that people will have a panoramic view if they come in through those big doors and look up that majestic Hall, which has served a multitude of purposes. Indeed, the top of the stairs at the other end is where William Wallace was tried before the King's court, before we became the United Kingdom. That huge, panoramic view will enhance visitors' experience of the building.

Eric Forth: In the light of the excellent earlier analysis of the hon. Member for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay), does the hon. Gentleman not agree that visitors will see this magnificent view through the ghastly glass structure that will apparently be constructed, which will desecrate Westminster Hall simply to allow the magnificent doors to be permanently open? Will that not rather spoil the splendour of the occasion?

Iain Luke: That supposes that people will be standing outside looking in. In fact, they will gain access to Parliament through the glass doors. As well as going through the glass doors, they will be looking up the Hall as they arrive, so their view will not be cluttered as they enter the building. That will be of benefit, because at the moment the line of route starts off in Westminster Hall and works its way through the building. The proposed means of entry is the natural entrance to the building.
	There has been much discussion of this issue, but change is necessary. We have talked about many aspects of bringing the Houses of Parliament into the 21st century, and reference has been made to the costs associated with the Scottish Parliament. The visitor experience provided by its interpretive centre, even in its temporary home on the Mound, puts this House to shame, even before it moves to its new home. The cost has been mentioned, but the centre will be excellent and people will be able to interact with it and understand more fully how the Scottish Parliament works.
	There will be ongoing discussion of the planning issues as the new building takes shape, and mention has been made of returning St. Stephen's Gate to its former condition of a pristine and uncluttered entrance for those who wish to use it.
	Some very worthwhile contributions have been made, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock on providing a truly historical perspective. I appreciate his concerns, which are real, but any change will give rise to concerns. I hope that the advantages that we derive from the changes will outweigh his concerns and that, in five years' time, he will be happy to say that although he opposed the changes, they were of benefit.

Eric Forth: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Can you confirm that when a Government Whip approaches you surreptitiouslyno doubt to ask if you will allow a closure motionyou will allow lobbying by other hon. Members as well, so that they can put to you a different point of view? Or are your ears open only to Government Whips who seek to curtail the debate?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Any question on procedure is a matter for the Chair, and is to be judged according to the circumstances at the time. The Chair cannot deny access from time to time to hon. Members, who ask many things. As the right hon. Gentleman well knows, any decision on procedure is taken by the Chair.

Roger Gale: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. In that case, I am sure that the Chair will take cognisance of the fact that this is an open-ended debate, and that some Members who have been here since the start of the debate still wish to speak.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The Chair will take cognisance of many things.

Iain Luke: Much has been made of the report, but conclusion 7 best sums up the feelings of the Administration Committee and the Accommodation and Works Committee. It states:
	Our visitors
	our constituents
	are the electors of the present and the future, or those who come from abroad to visit one of the most important and historic sites in the United Kingdom. They deserve a positive approach to their access and welcome.
	The proposals that form part of the report demonstrate that we are adopting such a policy. I hopeas the Committee and its Chairman doubtless dothat the House will accept these proposals tonight.

Bob Spink: We need to make the Palace more accessible and welcoming to visitors and our constituents. Although I respect the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Luke)I will go further: I actually like himI tend to disagree with his theme, which is that change is necessarily progress. It certainly is not, and this report raises more questions than it answers. The proposal is very underdeveloped, and the House should not vote in favour of it in its current state.
	Some of the key questions are about the detailed design and materials, and the provision of utilities. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) said, another question is whether a new de-mountable glazed Lobby is right for Westminster Hall, which was built by William Rufus in 1097. I doubt that very much. Why not have four or five security screening machines, rather than the three proposed, so that our constituents and the queues could be dealt with much more efficiently? Will not the fast tracking of Members' guests so that they can overtake all those who have queued up in the rain for hours on end cause irritation? Will it endear constituents to their Members of Parliament when, as guests, they are raced past all those other people, who are effectively made second-class citizens by that policy? I am not convinced that that is a good policy.
	Why not have a private sitting, so that we can all hear what the hon. Member for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay) now knows about the screen? We should all be able to share knowledge about security risks and have a proper debate about what is really going on and about the report's underlying security implications. We should be able to understand the full context of the most important security issues.
	My right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst dealt with the 5 million estimate more effectively than anyone else in the House. He rightly explained that it was not a confident or rigorously costed prediction. Indeed, it is just an estimate, and the report implies that it is likely to amount to more. I know of no other body, organisation or company that would go ahead with a multi-million pound proposal without a rigorous costing

Eric Forth: The Government.

Bob Spink: I do not see why the House should accept this nonsense. We need to link the changes to security recommended in the report with a comprehensive and cohesive security review. We should not tackle the problems in a piecemeal fashion, as we appear to be doing tonight.
	We need better visitor facilities, especially toilets. I personally welcome the giving up of Room W5 to provide more ladies' toilets. Guests arriving here after travelling a long way on coachesperhaps from Thurrock, from Castle Point or even from Dundee, Eastreally need toilet facilities, particularly the ladies. I see no reason why we should not seek to provide them.

Eric Forth: Is my hon. Friend saying that it is a case of moving from W5 to WC?

Bob Spink: I could not have put it better myself. We should not allow utility considerations to compromise the heritage of this place.
	The report mentions increasing the lighting levels in Westminster Hall. Mr. Deputy Speaker, during the time of your predecessor, Thomas Hungerford, who is generally recognised as the first Speaker to be so called around 1390, William Rufus' original roof caved in. It was replaced by the beautiful and unique hammerbeam roof, which we still admire today. As I walk through Westminster Hall after this debate, I shall look up at that roof and enjoy the experience very much. It was built of great oaks taken from the then King's hunting ground in Thundersley wood in my constituency. Indeed, it created a clearing in those very woods in which my house was built.
	Seriously, however, the current gentle and sympathetic lighting is subtle and evocative: some even find it ghostly. It is certainly mood enhancing, especially late at night. I do not want that atmosphere to be destroyed by modernisation philistines. The bottom line is that we must do nothing to compromise the heritage of this beautiful, wonderful and historic building.

James Gray: Thomas Hungerford lived just outside my constituency. How long has electric light been available in Westminster Hall?

Eric Forth: Too long.

Bob Spink: I imagine that the lighting many hundreds of years ago was even more subtle, emotional and atmospheric than it is today. I do not want the present effect to be destroyed by increased levels of lighting of which we have no knowledge at present. The bottom line is that we must do nothing to compromise the wonderful heritage and history of this building.
	The Benfleet historical society is due to visit this place next week, and the following week I shall be welcoming a group from Hadleigh. They want to see the true, beautiful Palace of Westminster in all its historic glory. They do not want to visit Disneyland.

Phil Woolas: We have had a very comprehensive debate. I remind the House that it has been the second half of the discussion: we had nearly an hour on 22 April and we have spent nearly three and a half hours on the matter this evening. All the points that have been made have been pertinent to the report.
	On behalf of the House, I thank the Committees that produced this report and their Chairmen, the hon. Members for Broxbourne (Mrs. Roe) and for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Derek Conway). I also thank the Chairman of the Broadcasting Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Lepper), who contributed to the debate. We all owe them thanks.
	The Government strongly support the report, which has been compiled by the Domestic Committees of the House. In essence, there are three arguments against the proposals. The first has to do with security. I repeat what I said on 22 April, which was underlined again tonight: the primary purpose of the proposal is to improve access for visitors. I believe that the change would be put in hand irrespective of security considerations. However, if those security considerations can be made more convenient for visitors, I urge the House to accept the move.
	Secondly, it has been said that we are being asked to buy a pig in a poke and that the House will be committed to further expenditure and development. On 22 April, I said that the Government believe, as do I, that those further developments are to be welcomed. However, as the Chairmen of the Committees said, this proposal is not a commitment to stage 2. When the House asks the Domestic Committees to undertake detailed work, it should give them a bit of trust. It is for the Committees to go into detail, probe and ask questions and I believe that they have done that.
	Finally, I think that the main thrust of the arguments against the proposal is based on a fear of change. The right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) has said that he fears that the House is turning into a theme park. I put it to him that his proposals would turn it into a museum. In the modern age, it is right and proper for us improve the facilities and the welcome that we extend to the 400,000 people who wish to visit. I suspect that more people would want to come here as a result. The welcome that we give people at the moment is frankly risible. People are asked to stand outside in the rain and cold, treated like strangers.

Roger Gale: Will the Minister give way?

Phil Woolas: I shall give way very briefly, as I want to finish my remarks.

Roger Gale: The debate is open-ended, so there is no haste. However, I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. Given his concern about visitors to the House, will he contemplate the fact that most of the visitors for whom the proposed facilities will be designed are likely to be from overseas? The visitors whom hon. Members would like to invite are our constituents, but they are denied access on Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday mornings. That is because the House now sits at times that render it impossible for them to be present.

Phil Woolas: I understand the point that the hon. Gentleman makes, but we are not debating sitting hours. The debate on 22 April made reference to the improvements that are proposed by other hon. Members on how best to allow constituents to visit the Palace of Westminster.

Bob Spink: Will the Minister give way?

Phil Woolas: No, I wish to finish on this point. The hon. Member for North Thanet (Mr. Gale) made a point about overseas visitors. I would have thought that Members of Parliament would see this building not only as a prime heritage site for the United Kingdom but as a prime world heritage site. The overseas visitors to this place, which is a symbol of democracy around the world, should be welcomed warmly and we should provide access for them. On that basis alone, I recommend the reports to the House.

Bob Ainsworth: rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.

Question put, That the Question be now put:
	The House divided: Ayes 161, Noes 35.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Oliver Heald: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The Question just decided was, That the Question be now put. But, ironically, as I understand it, that will not happen. Is it possible, with the Government's agreement, for us to proceed now to vote on the main Question? To do otherwise makes nonsense of the Houseare all here and all ready to vote, yet we cannot because of some silly rules.

Desmond Swayne: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it not profoundly shocking that those of us who either took the trouble to vote for free speech or, presumably, voted to settle the main Question now, discover that we are to be denied that opportunity and that we may as well have not troubled ourselves to be here at all?

Greg Knight: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Will you confirm that a Minister has moved a closure motion on open-ended business that is subject to the deferred Division procedure? The Government's only possible reason for doing that is so that the Minister could have an early night in bed. Is that not an insult to the House?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I have the gist of the point of order raised by the hon. Members. As they must all know, I am bound by the Standing Orders of the House; they are as they are, so I must now put the Question on motion 4.
	Main Question put

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I think the Ayes have it.

Hon. Members: No.
	Division deferred till Wednesday 12 May, pursuant to Order [28 June 2001 and 6 November 2003].

EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 119(9) (European Standing Committees),

Nutrition and Health Claims Made on Foods

That this House takes note of European Union Document No. 11646/03, a draft Regulation on nutrition and health claims made on foods; and supports the Government's view that the measure will promote informed consumer choice and facilitate intra-Community trade.[Mr. Heppell.]
	Question agreed to.

PETITION
	  
	Postern Gate Surgery

Michael Jabez Foster: The Bexhill and Rother primary care trust has decided to relocate the Postern Gate doctors' surgery in Rye to a centre 1 mile out of town and up a steep hill. I have the honour to present the petition of Geoff Lyus and about 1,000 other residents of the Rye area.
	The petition declares:
	That the decision of the Bexhill and Rother Primary Care Trust to relocate the Postern Gate Surgery in Rye to the Rye Memorial Care Centre which is 1 mile out of town and up a steep hill will cause hardship and inconvenience to thousands of local residents, many of whom are old and disabled and without their own transport.
	The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge Her Majesty's Government to take such steps as are necessary to prevent the proposed relocation and do all that is possible to ensure that the Surgery is relocated on the Thomas Peacock Lower School site within the town which is owned by East Sussex County Council.
	And the petitioners remain, etc.
	To lie upon the Table.

MYALGIC ENCEPHALOMYELITIS

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.[Mr. Heppell.]

Anthony D Wright: I am pleased to have secured this debate tonight, especially as this is the eve of ME awareness day, and many right hon. and hon. Members will be lobbied on the issue tomorrow. Two of my constituents, Tanya and Christine Harrison, will be here to lobby meit was just six years ago that they persuaded me to start the all-party group on ME. I should like to praise all the groups who have supported the all-party group and me in the interim, including BRAMEBlue Ribbon Awareness for MEAction for ME, the Association of Young People with ME, the ME Association, the 25 per cent. ME Group and many smaller but equally significant groups.
	ME continues to be a controversial chronic illness, as I have discovered first-hand in the various correspondence that I have received. It is estimated that 25,000 children and 100,000 to 300,000 adults suffer from ME in Britain. The condition has cost the taxpayer about 4 billion to date, with only small inroads being made into treatment and understanding. The report to the chief medical officer by the working group on chronic fatigue syndrome and ME was a landmark in changing Government perceptions of ME. However, at an operational level, the report's findings must have a greater impact on current practices, as access to benefits continues to present problems for sufferers. Lack of knowledge and understanding of the condition among professionals, widespread disbelief and institutional prejudice, lack of effective evaluation and plain stigmatisation mean that there is little or no consideration of the desperate problems experienced by sufferers. The disability living allowance and the new permitted work rules need to be revisited if we are fundamentally to change institutional prejudice towards this very real illness. I find it appalling that I still have to make this case.
	Carli Barry was an ME sufferer who tragically took her own life on 8 February 2001, aged 27. Her mother recently spoke about the system that took away her daughter's independence and dignity:
	Applying for benefits for an invisible illness with no diagnostic test is hell. The result largely depends on the beliefs of the doctor sent to examine youa game of Russian roulette.
	Carli's first application for DLA was turned down. Her second application resulted in payment of mobility allowance at high rate and carer allowance at lower rate. Her third application was completely rejected. It took 18 months for her case to reach the tribunal, when she was awarded a care element of DLA for three years. During that time her condition deteriorated as a result of stress.
	Another sufferer from ME, Gary Frankum, was a professional speedway rider before he had the condition. Talking about DLA assessment, he told me:
	The first Examining Medical Practitioner that came out to me was no sooner through the door than he confessed to me that he knew very little about ME; at least he acknowledged the condition. The second EMP that came out refused to even do this, saying that there was no such thing as ME, only CFS. When I demanded a copy of the assessments, after my DLA was turned down, I was amazed by the lies written about me.
	The Centre for Longitudinal Studies found that people with ME received a significantly smaller proportion of DLA awards for their main disabling condition compared with other groups. By contrast, a significantly higher proportion of ME claimants win their case on appeal. Action for ME conducted a survey entitled Severely Neglected: ME in the UK, in which 44 per cent. of the respondents who had applied for DLA said they had had to go to appeal. Of those who applied, only 25 per cent. were rejected. That illustrates how DLA is being denied to thousands of ME sufferers.
	The first hurdle most apparent to ME sufferers is the fluctuating and difficult initial diagnosis of the illness. Having a good GP who is supportive of a patient's ME experience can make all the difference to a successful DLA claim. There are many such GPs. However, it is far too often the case that a disbelieving or untrained local GP destroys an ME patient's chance of receiving correct treatment and advice on undertaking to receive DLA. To resolve the problem, it is essential that local GPs are equipped to deal with ME.
	The chief medical officer's working group report on CFS/ME highlighted the need for more doctors, nurses and health care professionals who know and understand CFS/ME. On 12 May 2003 the Health Minister announced a central revenue budget of 8.5 million to develop services specially designed for people with ME. The investment is intended to pump-prime the development of clinical services where none currently exists, but that should be seen only as a beginning, not as an end.
	The second hurdle that exists for ME sufferers claiming DLA is an inflexible, poorly explained and burdensome DLA form. The form consists predominantly of questions requiring a yes or no answer, which do not effectively represent the problems associated with ME as a fluctuating chronic illness. Consequently, ME sufferers often inadvertently misrepresent their condition. Furthermore, the DLA application forms are burdensome and often leave ME sufferers exhaustedowing, ironically, to the very forms that are designed to ensure their future support. That acts as a negative incentive to complete the forms, with the risk that ME sufferers will not claim when they should do so.
	The third hurdle is the poor training and education of DLA decision makers, causing bias against ME sufferers. The Association of Young People with ME states:
	If decision makers and DWP assessing doctors were given more balanced training and less biased information about ME, patients would be treated more sympathetically by the benefits system.
	However, the Department for Work and Pensions initial training for new entrant decision makers states of ME sufferers that they are able to move
	from bed rest one day to being able to venture far afield the next.
	That shows an outrageous misunderstanding of ME that must be addressed.
	The fourth hurdle is DLA physical assessment examinations. The current physical assessment examination is inappropriate for evaluating the abilities of an ME sufferer. First, it does not give an adequate picture of the illness, whose symptoms worsen with a delayed impact following activity. Secondly, there is often conflict between the claim form and an examining medical practitioner's report, as the claimant may have made an effort to be at his or her best on the day of assessment. Thirdly, the EMP's report may include misleading information, such as the appearance and state of the home, without questions such as, Who did the cleaning? and, How long did it take? having been asked.
	Fourthly, claimants may be pressurised into signing the assessment form while feeling unwell or too intimidated to challenge a doctor on that day. Fifthly, visits are often made at only 24 hours' notice and are hard for ME sufferers to turn down, owing to the variability of their condition. In short, how is it possible for an EMP, in an assessment that lasts less than an hour in most cases, accurately to record the state of a patient with such variable symptoms as ME, and without having strong prior knowledge of that patient?
	The problem is compounded by the fifth hurdle, which is the bad practice of some EMPs during physical assessment. Like many GPs, there are still many EMPs who do not believe that ME exists or lack understanding of it, and who openly suggest to patients that they have psychological problems. That often undermines initial claims, as the report will take precedence over other medical reports, despite some being in conflict with the claimant's local GP's report. One example of misunderstanding shown by EMPs in assessments relates to muscle wastage. Also, there is no provision for measuring the delayed impact that activity has on a person with ME.
	Finally, the sixth hurdle that can be identified is a cumbersome and overburdening review and renewals process. If a claimant is successful in negotiating all the other hurdles and eventually receives DLA and obtains care or mobility assistance, their condition may finally stabilise. However, stabilisation will inevitably mean that ME claimants will fall short of the necessary criteria and DLA will be taken away, causing a relapse and costing the state more money when a new DLA application is made. Sufferers also run the risk of losing all benefits should they wish to contest an award, which is unfair given the nature of ME and the poor ability of the DWP to assess it.
	I should like the Minister to consider these recommendations in addressing those hurdles. EMPs and GPs should be given information and training on ME so that they ask revealing and pertinent questions, taking account of the delayed impact of activity and symptom fluctuation. DLA forms, which currently give little scope for explaining the effect of ME symptoms over a period of time, must change to address the problems already outlined for ME sufferers.
	Accurate and clear guidance should be provided to DLA advice and assessment staff in the DWP. It should include guidance on how to manage conflicting medical opinions between EMP and GP reports. The process of medical assessment should be geared to the needs of sufferers, and the refusal of a medical assessment should not mean that a claim for DLA is automatically turned down. EMPs should be given better guidance and monitoring for physical assessment exams to ensure correct evaluationone approach might involve keeping medicals to a set time frame, with breaks.
	The review process must be better clarified for claimants, preventing unnecessary appeals and saving costs. In my experience, few sufferers realise that a review can be triggered by just a telephone call. The tribunal process must be made more flexible, as many claimants with ME do not pursue an appeal because they feel too unwell at the time. DLA claimants should be made aware that information that they give about a future claim might affect their current claim. As an alternative, the benefit could be held in perpetuity to give people the opportunity to ask for a review without losing benefits. Importantly, a middle rate mobility component should be introduced to aid gradual recovery. Currently, lower rate mobility is available only if the claimant has a mental illness. Those falling short of the higher rate can be left without anything, pushing them into severe relapse, which further costs the taxpayer.
	Finally, I would like to turn more briefly to changes from the old to the new permitted work rules, which make it harder than ever for ME sufferers to remain included in work, with a dignified way of life. The chief medical officer's working group report on CFS/ME states:
	Return to work, even after prolonged absence, can be hard to negotiate at levels realistic for these patients, and the potential for a 'benefits trap' is only partially ameliorated by current rules on therapeutic work and therapeutic earnings.
	However, rather than providing a stepping stone into work as intended, the rules have pushed ME suffers into working fewer hours or giving work up all together in order to retain their benefits, creating the trap that the Minister has tried to avoid.
	The 20 limit for weekly earnings at the lower permitted work rules level is unrealistic for ME sufferers. Non-manual work is usually paid at more than 6 per hour, and professionals can earn up to 10 to 25 per hour, which means that ME sufferers get pushed into the higher level six-month rule, even though they may work for only three hours a week. The old therapeutic work scheme allowed those who worked for up to 16 hours or more a week a salary of up to 67.50. Under the new higher level permitted work rules, that income can only continue for a 26-week fixed period before assessment, and the jobs broker can then only extend it for a maximum further period of 26 weeks before it is replaced by the 20 a week maximum sum or incapacity benefit is stopped.
	I am not sure of the rationale behind that change, given that many other disabled people, who are unable to return fully to the workplace but require supervision within it, are still paid up to 67.50 for an indefinite period. What is the difference between someone who needs supervision and someone who does not when both are equally unable to return to work fully? If people decide to stop benefits and continue working, but work for less than 16 hours per week, they could be in a grey area with regard to tax credits, as single people must work for 30 hours a week and people with children or disabled people must work for 16 hours a week. Recovery from ME is gradual, and it often takes years. For those who, owing to their condition, are unable fully to return to work, the new permitted work scheme seems unfair and inflexible, which is something that I hope the Minister will address.
	I ask the Minister to respond to two recommendations on this matter. First, the 20 per week limit on the lower threshold of permitted work should be set at a more realistic level or special provision should be given to groups such as those suffering from ME, who are unable to follow a course back to full employment.
	Secondly, extension of work should be made more accessible beyond the initial six months. For example, the 16-hour requirement should be brought down to a lower level, say 10 or 12 hours. Also, more than six months should be allowed for the gradual build-up of work hours in the case of chronic conditions such as ME.
	The recommendations that I have made are feasible. Many of them are more to do with cultural shifts than with the expense of vast resources. It is certain, however, that something must be done to end this discrimination that this group have faced regarding benefits. This Government have done more for ME sufferers overall than any before, and they are making sure progress in tackling the condition, but the Minister must ensure that the DWP continues that work by instituting some of the changes that I have proposed, which are supported by many in the ME community.

Jane Kennedy: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Great Yarmouth (Mr. Wright) on securing this important debate. I am grateful to him for presenting me with the opportunity to explain the basis of entitlement to disability living allowance, or DLA, and the role of the new permitted work rules that are replacing the therapeutic earnings rules. I pay tribute to him for the vigour with which he has pursued his case. As he said, he was a founder of the all-party group on myalgic encephalomyelitis and currently chairs it. The Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Garston (Maria Eagle), has told me about the vigour with which he fights for the cause of ME sufferers, not only in his role as all-party group chair, but from the experience that he has drawn from constituents whom he has got to know during the time that he has represented them. They will be grateful to him for his efforts, as will all sufferers from ME.
	When I discussed this debate with my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Garston, I was impressed by the depth of her understanding of the illness and of the detail of her brief. In her unavoidable absence, I am afraid that I will be but a poor substitute.
	The Government acknowledge some of the concerns expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Great Yarmouth, and I hope that I will be able to deal with them in the short time that we inevitably have in an Adjournment debate. If I miss any points, I undertake to write to him. We do not share some of his other concerns, but when my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Garston visits his group shortly, she will take that opportunity to explore them further.
	Myalgic encephalomyelitis, or ME, which is otherwise known as chronic fatigue syndrome, describes a spectrum of conditions where the prominent symptoms are fatigue, both physical and psychological, which may affect both physical and psychological functioning. My hon. Friend said that the illness still carries with it a degree of dispute as to its nature. Several names, including post-viral fatigue syndrome, have been used to describe the condition. More recently, the term chronic fatigue syndrome has been more universally adopted. That gives rise to some relief among those of us who are not medical experts.
	How does ME relate to entitlement to disability living allowance? I should like to dispel straight away the idea that ME is not recognised by the Department for Work and Pensions as a potentially serious condition that may bring entitlement to DLA. Approximately 14,200 people get DLA because their primary disabling condition is ME, and about 2,200 successful applications are made every year.
	Disability living allowance is a tax-free, non-contributory and non-means-tested benefit that is paid as a contribution towards the extra costs that are faced by severely disabled people as a result of their disabilities. However, entitlement to the allowance is not linked to specific disabling conditions or to particular diagnoses. That means that people who have ME qualify for benefit on exactly the same basis as other disabled peoplethat is, they must meet the entitlement conditions. The Government believe that criteria based on the effect that disability has on personal care needs and the ability to walk are the right approach for determining entitlement to DLA. I am afraid that we have no plans to passport people to entitlement to the benefit on the basis of specific disabling conditions.

Russell Brown: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Jane Kennedy: I hesitate to give way as this is the debate of my hon. Friend the Member for Great Yarmouth, but I shall make an exception for my hon. Friend.

Russell Brown: I thank the Minister for giving way. I also congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Great Yarmouth (Mr. Wright) on securing this debate. The Minister is talking specifically about the assessment of an individual's condition, and my hon. Friend has mentioned visits for medicals, which sometimes take an hour. From my experience of listening to my constituents, I have learned that those medicals can sometimes take only 15 or 20 minutes. That is not an adequate amount of time in which to go through a proper medical and arrive at a true determination.

Jane Kennedy: My hon. Friend makes a serious point, and I shall come in a moment to the training and advice that is given to those who make the medical assessments. I hope that if I get the opportunity to explain the details, I shall be able to allay some of his fears.
	It is important when assessing a person's ability to ascertain the effect of the condition on each individual's need for attention, the extent of those needs, for how long they have been present, and for how long they are likely to remain. It is therefore important that time is taken to make that assessment properly and for it to be made for each individual applicant in exactly the same fair and thorough way. With regard to the mobility components, it is important to assess the person's ability to walk and whether they need someone with them on unfamiliar routes.
	ME is, by its very nature, a variable condition, and it is not possible to guarantee that someone will qualify for DLA, because the effects of ME affect people in different ways, to different degrees and with considerable variations over time. This approach is no different in regard to other variable conditions, such as mental illness, asthma, rheumatoid arthritis, multiple sclerosis and othersthat is not an exhaustive list. I know that my hon. Friends would make a similar case for other illnesses in which similar conditions were experienced.

Andy King: My right hon. Friend draws our attention to other conditions, but those other conditions are universally accepted. The problem that we are discussing tonight is highlighted by the fact that many of the GPsa minority, I hopewho are responsible for carrying out these assessments do not accept that the condition exists. That is a major stumbling block for many of our constituents.

Jane Kennedy: My hon. Friend's point is well made.
	It will probably help if I turn now to the training and advice that is given to those whom we charge with the job of making the medical assessment of those applying for disability living allowance. All examining medical practitionersEMPsalready get specific training about ME or chronic fatigue syndrome. It was first issued in 2001, and updated in 2003. My hon. Friend the Member for Great Yarmouth asked us to look again at the detail of that training.
	The training stresses the need to consider the variability of symptoms and not to take a snapshot view, which was the concern expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Mr. Brown). The training that EMPs receive instructs them not to include irrelevant information in their reports. Information should be included only if it has a material bearing on the assessment. Similarly, visits at short notice are not in keeping with the expected professional standards unless they have been agreed to by the customer. The doctors employed by medical services to carry out examinations for DLA purposes also have to meet specific recruitment criteria and are required to attend a prescribed training course prior to commencing work. We should not experience any scepticism on the part of those whom we are charging with the task of carrying out these assessmentsthe examining medical practitioners.
	In addition to that training, the EMPs are issued with relevant guidance, and the Department's chief medical adviser must approve all doctors who carry out the examinations. The standard of their work is monitored and approval can be withdrawn if a doctor fails to meet the necessary standards. They are also required to undertake an annual programme of training to refine their skills and update their knowledge of disability medicine and other relevant topics.
	People should complain if the expected standards are not met, and Department for Work and Pensions medical services will always respond to complaints about individual doctors. Department for Work and Pensions medical services do not get a greater incidence of complaints about chronic fatigue syndrome or ME than other conditions, and they should be viewed in the context of the overall number of complaints, which is 0.4 per cent. of all medical assessments made. I believe that that is a good record. However, that is not to say that we do not take complaints seriously.
	Claim forms were mentioned. We are listening to the feedback from customers who use the forms. The claim forms for disability living allowance and attendance allowance are designed to enable disabled people to give a full account of the effects of their disability, rather than to cover any specific illness or disability. We do not have specific forms for different illnesses. However, we acknowledge the length of the claim forms and the fact that some of the questions may not always be relevant to each individual's needs or straightforward to answer. We accept that they have been a cause of concern for some disabled people. Consequently, we developed a new style of attendance allowance claim form in 2002, which, after successful evaluation, has been in use nationally since November 2003.
	The new version reduced by half the size of the claim pack, and has a simpler style and fewer questions, making it much easier to complete. The form has been designed to enable people to tick the relevant statements from a prompt list provided on it and to tell us briefly, in their own words, the sort of help that they need during the day or night. Following the success of the new AA claim form, we are developing a new, shorter DLA claim form, which we hope to test shortly in the area served by the Glasgow disability benefit centreunfortunately, not the area of my hon. Friend the Member for Great Yarmouth.
	In the few minutes that I have left, I want to consider the permitted work rules that my hon. Friend mentioned at the end of his contribution. We are replacing therapeutic work with new permitted work rules. Benefits such as incapacity benefit, severe disablement allowance and income support, which are awarded on the basis of incapacity, are intended for people who are incapacitated by the effects of their condition. Benefit cannot therefore normally be paid to people who work because the basic entitlement condition is not satisfied. However, we recognise that allowing a limited amount of work can help to improve a person's condition, increase their chances of returning to the labour market and help them to achieve lasting paid employment.
	Previous rules allowed benefit to continue if work was undertaken on the advice of the claimant's GP and it was confirmed that the work would help to improve, prevent or delay deterioration in the condition that entitled the person to benefit. That was often described as therapeutic work. As my hon. Friend said, earnings could not exceed a prescribed limit and the work had to be done for less than 16 hours a week on average. However, the therapeutic work rules were of limited use when a person could not demonstrate that a specific job would be beneficial to their medical condition, for example, blindness, paraplegiaor, indeed, ME. They allowed a person to do some paid work on a limited basis only if it satisfied the therapeutic requirement and they applied to a relatively limited number of people on incapacity benefits.
	Therefore, as part of our commitment to remove the barriers to work for those with a health condition or a disability, we introduced new, more flexible work rules from April 2002. They replaced the therapeutic rules, which my hon. Friend is almost wishing back because he is not satisfied with the replacement. These are what we call the permitted work rules.
	The permitted work rules are still at a relatively early stage and are undergoing evaluation by independent researchers. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will be happy to go into this in greater detail when she meets with my hon. Friend's all-party group very shortly.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Adjourned accordingly at twenty-one minutes to Eleven o'clock.